65 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sands v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Our supreme court described the three steps of the “Burford rule” as follows: “(1) determine when the limitations period would normally have begun to run; (2) determine whether the grounds for relief actually arose after the limitations period would normally have commenced; and (3) if the grounds are ‘later- arising,’ determine if, under the facts of the case, a strict application of the limitations period would effectively deny the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present the claim.” -5- Id. (quoting Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995)). 2018Our supreme court described the three steps of the “Burford rule” as follows: “(1) determine when the limitations period would normally have begun to run; (2) determine whether the grounds for relief actually arose after the limitations period would normally have commenced; and (3) if the grounds are ‘later- arising,’ determine if, under the facts of the case, a strict application of the limitations period would effectively deny the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present the claim.” Id. (quoting Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995)). | 32 | 50 |
Ricky HARRIS v. STATE of Tennesseered2 sentences2017Our supreme court described the three steps of the ―Burford rule‖ as follows: ―(1) determine when the limitations period would normally have begun to run; (2) determine whether the grounds for relief actually arose after the limitations period would normally have commenced; and (3) if the grounds are ‗later- arising,‘ determine if, under the facts of the case, a strict application of the limitations period would effectively deny the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present the claim.‖ Id. (quoting Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995)). ―Whether due process considerations requ 2017“Whether due process considerations require tolling of a statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 145 . | 4 | 8 |
Burford v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Our supreme court described the three steps of the “Burford rule” as follows: “(1) determine when the limitations period would normally have begun to run; (2) determine whether the grounds for relief actually arose after the limitations period would normally have commenced; and (3) if the grounds are ‘later- arising,’ determine if, under the facts of the case, a strict application of the limitations period would effectively deny the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present the claim.” -5- Id. (quoting Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995)). 2018Our supreme court described the three steps of the “Burford rule” as follows: “(1) determine when the limitations period would normally have begun to run; (2) determine whether the grounds for relief actually arose after the limitations period would normally have commenced; and (3) if the grounds are ‘later- arising,’ determine if, under the facts of the case, a strict application of the limitations period would effectively deny the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present the claim.” Id. (quoting Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995)). | 3 | 28 |
Caldwell v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Caldwell v. State, 917 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1996), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 148 , 136 L.Ed.2d 94 (1996) and Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Canatella v. Carrgreen1 sentence1997See Caldwell v. State, 917 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1996), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 148 , 136 L.Ed.2d 94 (1996) and Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Forbes v. Patrissigreen1 sentence1997See Caldwell v. State, 917 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1996), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 148 , 136 L.Ed.2d 94 (1996) and Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee
green
2 sentences2021Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Nunley, 552 S.W.3d 800 . 2021Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Nunley, 552 S.W.3d 800 . | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2020Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 300 (Tenn. 1995). -3- Relying on Williams, the petitioner claims coram nobis counsel’s alleged misrepresentation constitutes a violation of due process which should toll the statute of limitations. 44 S.W.3d 464 . 2011The Tennessee Supreme Court applied the Burford principle in Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). | 2 | 2011–2020 |
Wooden v. State
green
2 sentences1999E.g., Wooden v. State, 898 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (remanded for hearing to determine whether evidence was exculpatory and if so, whether Burford exception applied); Sample v. State, No. 02C01-9505-CR-00131 and No. 02C01-9505-CR-00139, 1996 WL 551754 (Tenn.Crim.App., Jackson, Sept. 30, 1996) (applying Burford exception and remanding for further proceedings on exculpatory evidence); Armstrong v. State, No. 01C01-9311-CR-00403, 1994 WL 695424 (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, Dec. 8, 1994) (applying Burford exception and remanding for proceedings on exculpatory evidence issue). 1998Wooden v. State, 898 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 1998–1999 |
Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee
green
1 sentence2018In Payne, the petitioner was sentenced to death in 1988 for two murders he committed in 1987. 493 S.W.3d at 480-81 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.