Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rowe v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2023See id. (citing Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 570–71 (1972); Rowe v. Bd. of Educ. of Chattanooga, 938 S.W.2d 351, 354 (Tenn. 1996)). 2016Board of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 570–71, 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Rowe v. Board of Educ. of City of Chattanooga, 938 S.W.2d 351, 354 (Tenn. 1996). | 4 | 4 |
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Rothgreen2 sentences2023See id. (citing Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 570–71 (1972); Rowe v. Bd. of Educ. of Chattanooga, 938 S.W.2d 351, 354 (Tenn. 1996)). 2016Board of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 570–71, 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Rowe v. Board of Educ. of City of Chattanooga, 938 S.W.2d 351, 354 (Tenn. 1996). | 1 | 4 |
Christian Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Educationgreen2 sentences2023See id. (citing Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 570–71 (1972); Rowe v. Bd. of Educ. of Chattanooga, 938 S.W.2d 351, 354 (Tenn. 1996)). 2016As the Tennessee Supreme Court explained in Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education, 380 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2012): When a person asserts a procedural due process claim, the court must first determine whether he or she has an interest entitled to due process protection. | 1 | 2 |
Martin v. Sizemoregreen1 sentence2021According to the verified petition, the Pension Board deprived the petitioners of a vested property interest “without notice and an opportunity for them to be heard.” “The protections of procedural due process apply to administrative proceedings.” Martin v. Sizemore, 78 S.W.3d 249, 263 (Tenn. Ct. Ap. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Dorothy King v. Virginia Bettsgreen1 sentence2015While the trial court correctly stated that in order to recover damages for a procedural due process violation, litigants must prove they personally suffered an actual injury to a protected right, see King v. Betts, 354 S.W.3d 691, 703 (Tenn. 2011), we note that Ms. Emory did not allege that the Board violated her procedural due process rights. | 1 | 1 |
No. 90-1091green1 sentence2005In most situations where ripeness is an issue, “The courts will decline to act in cases where there is no need for the court to act or where the refusal to act will not prevent the parties from raising the issue at a more appropriate time.” Martin v. Washmaster 35 See also, Bigelow v. Michigan Dep’t of Natural Resources, 970 F.2d 154, 160 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that when the substantive due process claim is ancillary or an adjunct to a takings claim, the ripeness requirements of Williamson County will be applied so that plaintiffs cannot “circumvent the ripeness requirement for takings claim | 1 | 1 |
Robert T. Richardson v. Township of Bradygreen1 sentence2005See Richardson, 218 F.3d at 513 n. 3 (acknowledging that the property interest standard for substantive due process should be clarified, but declining to do so) and at 518 (Ryan J., concurring) (stating there is “considerable confusion” regarding the property interest a plaintiff must assert, which “the Supreme Court has thus far not dispelled,” but acknowledging that some circuits, including the Sixth, have recognized a distinction between the kind of property interest protected by procedural due process and that protected by substantive due process). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Baylessgreen1 sentence1998See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d at 375 ; cf. Dean v. Campbell, No. 02A01-9704-CV-00077, 1997 WL 401960 , at *1 (Tenn. App. July 17, 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1999In the instant case, the petitioner asks this court to graft the above analysis, applicable to a procedural due process claim under Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. at 385-386, 86 S.Ct. at 842, onto a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687-697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064-2069 . 1999In the instant case, the petitioner asks this court to graft the above analysis, applicable to a procedural due process claim under Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. at 385-386, 86 S.Ct. at 842, onto a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687-697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064-2069 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.