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 1979–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fuller v. Starnesgreen1 sentence2018See Randolph v. Meduri, 416 S.W.3d 378, 384-85 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Zack Cheek Builders, Inc. v. McLeod, 597 S.W.2d 88, 890 (Tenn. 1980)). | 1 | 1 |
Patricia Carlene Mayfield v. Phillip Harold Mayfieldgreen1 sentence2018He contends that as a result, “the documents redacted . . . that were the subject of the show cause hearing were never before the Chancellor because the Chancellor refused to enforce the . . . subpoena.” “In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, an appellate court ‘should presume that the [trial court’s] decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” Mayfield v. Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108, 115 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105-106 (Tenn. 2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Gonsewski v. Gonsewskigreen1 sentence2018He contends that as a result, “the documents redacted . . . that were the subject of the show cause hearing were never before the Chancellor because the Chancellor refused to enforce the . . . subpoena.” “In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, an appellate court ‘should presume that the [trial court’s] decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” Mayfield v. Mayfield, 395 S.W.3d 108, 115 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105-106 (Tenn. 2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Jamie Randolph, on behalf of her mother, Carolyn Randolph v. Gianfranco Meduri, M.D.green1 sentence2018See Randolph v. Meduri, 416 S.W.3d 378, 384-85 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Zack Cheek Builders, Inc. v. McLeod, 597 S.W.2d 88, 890 (Tenn. 1980)). | 1 | 1 |
Raymond Sheaffer v. Warehouse Employees Union, Local No. 730, Etc.green1 sentence2017Each case, of course, must be evaluated within its own procedural context.’” Id. at *19-20 (quoting Sheaffer v. Warehouse Employees Union, 408 F.2d 204, 206 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Baptist Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2017Each case, of course, must be evaluated within its own procedural context.’” Id. at *19-20 (quoting Sheaffer v. Warehouse Employees Union, 408 F.2d 204, 206 (D.C. 2017In affirming the decision on appeal, we relied on a Tennessee Supreme Court case in holding that “‘a trial court may under certain circumstances and upon adequate grounds therefor, sua sponte order the involuntary dismissal of an action.’” Id. at *16 (quoting Harris v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 574 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tenn. 1978)). 2 We have not been provided transcripts of the expedited hearing, the status conferences, or the show cause hearing. 2 Furthermore, we reasoned, “[i]n determining whether a case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the trial judge may ‘inspect the entire procedural | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Fullitongreen1 sentence2006Additionally, much of the argument relates to his failure to attend the show cause hearing, not the contempt hearing. -4- Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 78-79 (Tenn. 2000); Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 304, 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Ahern v. Aherngreen1 sentence2006Additionally, much of the argument relates to his failure to attend the show cause hearing, not the contempt hearing. -4- Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 78-79 (Tenn. 2000); Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 304, 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Everhart v. Stategreen1 sentence1979Appellant contends the judgment finding him to be an habitual motor vehicle offender is null and void in that he was not represented by counsel at the show-cause hearing. “[Proceedings to revoke or suspend driving privileges [are] civil in nature and not criminal.” Everhart v. State, 563 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Commissioner of the Department of Transportation v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2014From this point, “the show cause hearing grew into a proceeding that spanned some ten days. . . [and] involved approximately a dozen witnesses. . . and approximately seventy-six exhibits.” Id. 2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wilson v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2006The charge may proceed after the trial court reviews the petition to ensure that it is not being instituted for improper motives or without regard for justice, Wilson v. Wilson, 984 S.W.2d at 905 , and gives the defendant notice of a show cause hearing in the matter. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
MacLay v. Jones
green
2 sentences2006At the show-cause hearing in the trial court below, Police Department supervisory personnel, including the Chief of the Police Department, the division commander, the commander of the violent crimes unit, and the commander of the gang enforcement unit, all testified based on personal knowledge, describing the information in the field interview cards and explaining how they were used to identify suspects, witnesses, informants, to gather information on the locations of criminal or gang-related activity, and how disclosure of the cards would give criminals information on police tactics and lead 2006At the show-cause hearing in the trial court below, Police Department supervisory personnel, including the Chief of the Police Department, the division commander, the commander of the violent crimes unit, and the commander of the gang enforcement unit, all testified based on personal knowledge, describing the information in the field interview cards and explaining how they were used to identify suspects, witnesses, informants, to gather information on the locations of criminal or gang-related activity, and how disclosure of the cards would give criminals information on police tactics and lead | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bah v. Bah
green
1 sentence1991This Court, in Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663 (Tenn.App.1983), set forth a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining where the best interest of the child lies when awarding custody. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence1990The court in Jones, supra, held a defendant being prosecuted for violating Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-616 was not entitled to be relieved of a previous habitual offender judgment on the basis of the failure to have counsel at a show cause hearing prior to trial on the habitual offender proceedings. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.