66 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2026 30 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rockwellgreen2 sentences2026The trial court aptly noted that the Petitioner’s double jeopardy rights were protected by, rather than infringed upon by, the exact procedure of which he complains. 2 “If this court were to summarily grant a waiver whenever confronted with untimely notices, the thirty-day requirement of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) would be rendered a legal fiction.” Rockwell, 280 S.W.3d at 214 . 2026As the trial court aptly concluded, “The indictment clearly sets out in [count 1] that the [Petitioner] ‘did unlawfully and intentionally sexually penetrate and cause bodily injury to [the victim], in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-502.’” “If this court were to summarily grant a waiver whenever confronted with untimely notices, the thirty-day requirement of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) would be rendered a legal fiction.” Rockwell, 280 S.W.3d at 214 . | 21 | 39 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2010The Tennessee Supreme Court in Moore v. State, 578 S.W. 2d 78, 82 (Tenn. 1979), created an exception to the thirty day rule, holding that: [T]he thirty-day limitation . . . is applicable only when all parties - including the defendant, who must act promptly-have acted in good faith and in compliance with the statute. 2009In Moore v. State, 578 S.W.2d 78, 82 (Tenn. 1979), our supreme court created an exception to the thirty-day rule announced in the last sentence of Rule 5(e), stating that the thirty-day time limitation applies “only when all parties--including the defendant, who must act promptly--have acted in good faith and in compliance with the statute. | 3 | 6 |
State v. Boughgreen2 sentences2017State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tenn. 2004); see Tenn. R. 2017State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tenn. 2004); see Tenn. R. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Lockgreen2 sentences2010State v. Lock, 839 S.W.2d 436, 440 (Tenn. Crim. 2009State v. Lock, 839 S.W.2d 436, 440 (Tenn. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Givhangreen2 sentences2010State v. Givham, 616 S.W.2d 612, 613 (Tenn. Crim. 2001State v. Givhan, 616 S.W.2d 612, 613 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Weaver v. Smithgreen2 sentences2008Weaver v. Smith, 102 Tenn. 47 , 50 S.W. 771, 774 (1899). 2008Weaver v. Smith, 102 Tenn. 47 , 50 S.W. 771, 774 (1899). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hatchergreen1 sentence2024See Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d at 801 ; Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2016State v. Martin, 940 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Scheele v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.green1 sentence2012Co., 218 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tenn.2007) (‘We find the thirty-day requirement ... directory, not mandatory.... [Substantial compliance with the statute’s thirty-day notice requirement is legally sufficient.”); Perkins v. Enter. | 1 | 1 |
Perkins v. Enterprise Truck Lines, Inc.green1 sentence2012Truck Lines, Inc., 896 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tenn.1995) (“[t]his Court held that the procedural requirements were directory, not mandatory. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bilbreygreen1 sentence2007State v. Lock, 839 S.W.2d 436, 440 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992) (citing State v. Bilbrey, 816 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Tenn.Crim.App.1991)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Steinwinter Investor Group Ex Rel. American Steinwinter, Inc. v. American Steinwinter, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024American Steinwinter Investor Group v. American Steinwinter, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). 2024American Steinwinter Investor Group v. American Steinwinter, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). | 8 | 2012–2024 |
State v. Golden
green
1 sentence2000Golden, 941 S.W.2d at 908 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.