equitable tolling doctrine in Tennessee

2000See Norton, 895 S.W.2d at 321 . -11- In sentencing each Defendant to two death penalties for the two murders they jointly committed, the jury relied upon the following three aggravating circumstances: 1.

1999Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Tenn.1996)(citing Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 321 (Tenn.1995)(choosing in favor of the existing doctrine of equitable estoppel over equitable tolling)).

2022A writ of error coram nobis is an “extraordinary procedural remedy,” filling only a “slight gap into which few cases fall.” State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 672 (Tenn. 1999) (citation omitted).

2016Even if we give the Petitioner the benefit of the doubt and conclude that the affidavit, though not the petition, “contains sufficient specific factual averments which, if true, make out a prima facie basis for invocation of the equitable tolling doctrine,” see Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 159 (Koch, J., concurring in part and concurring in result), we simply cannot conclude that this proof may have resulted in a different judgment had it been presented at trial.

2014Since, however, RESPA is a federal statute, we are not prevented by Tennessee law from considering the equitable tolling defense. 9 Inc., 556 F.3d 415, 422 (6th Cir. 2009).

2010The equitable tolling analysis entails a consideration of “the governmental interests involved and the private interests affected by the official action.” Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d at 103 .

2010The equitable tolling analysis entails a consideration of “the governmental interests involved and the private interests affected by the official action.” Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d at 103 .

1999Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Tenn.1996)(citing Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 321 (Tenn.1995)(choosing in favor of the existing doctrine of equitable estoppel over equitable tolling)).