8 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1951–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leonard Edward Smith v. State of Tennesseegreen2 sentences2012In Smith v. State, 357 S.W.3d 322, 358 (Tenn.2011), we observed that the “pervasive .theme” in cases in which a procedural limitation violated a petitioner’s due process rights “is that circumstances beyond a petitioner’s control ” .prevented compliance with the procedural limitation at issue. 2012In Smith v. State, 357 S.W.3d 322, 358 (Tenn. 2011), we observed that the “pervasive theme” in cases in which a procedural limitation violated a petitioner’s due process rights “is that circumstances beyond a petitioner’s control” prevented compliance with the procedural limitation at issue. | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001) (recognizing a possible due process violation based upon counsel misrepresenting the fact that appellate review was being sought); Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000) (recognizing a possible due process violation where mental incompetence prevents an inmate from filing a post-conviction petition); Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn.1995) (providing a three-part test for applying Burford and noting that courts should consider whether the grounds for the claim at issue arose after the statute of limitations began to run). 2012See, e.g., Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (recognizing a possible due process violation based upon counsel misrepresenting the fact that appellate review was being sought); Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (recognizing a possible due process violation where mental incompetence prevents an inmate from filing a post-conviction petition); Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (providing a three-part test for applying Burford and noting that courts should consider whether the grounds for the claim at issue arose after the statute of limitations began to run). | 2 | 2 |
Carr v. Borchersgreen1 sentence2019Carr v. Borchers, 815 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Audrey S.green1 sentence2009In the grounds inquiry, a parent’s constitutional rights are given significant weight, and courts primarily look at the conduct of that parent . . . once grounds have been established, the best interests of the children become the paramount focus of the trial court. (citing In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jack Randall MacCloskeygreen1 sentence2008Evid. 804(a)(1); see also United States v. MacCloskey, 682 F.2d 468, 477 (1982) (stating witness is "unavailable” for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(1) when witness invokes Fifth Amendment Privilege); Breeden v. Indep. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Matthewsgreen1 sentence2000See State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 778-79 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sands v. State
green
2 sentences2012See, e.g., Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001) (recognizing a possible due process violation based upon counsel misrepresenting the fact that appellate review was being sought); Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000) (recognizing a possible due process violation where mental incompetence prevents an inmate from filing a post-conviction petition); Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn.1995) (providing a three-part test for applying Burford and noting that courts should consider whether the grounds for the claim at issue arose after the statute of limitations began to run). 2012See, e.g., Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (recognizing a possible due process violation based upon counsel misrepresenting the fact that appellate review was being sought); Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (recognizing a possible due process violation where mental incompetence prevents an inmate from filing a post-conviction petition); Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (providing a three-part test for applying Burford and noting that courts should consider whether the grounds for the claim at issue arose after the statute of limitations began to run). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
John Paul Seals v. State of Tennessee
green
2 sentences2012See, e.g., Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001) (recognizing a possible due process violation based upon counsel misrepresenting the fact that appellate review was being sought); Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000) (recognizing a possible due process violation where mental incompetence prevents an inmate from filing a post-conviction petition); Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn.1995) (providing a three-part test for applying Burford and noting that courts should consider whether the grounds for the claim at issue arose after the statute of limitations began to run). 2012See, e.g., Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (recognizing a possible due process violation based upon counsel misrepresenting the fact that appellate review was being sought); Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (recognizing a possible due process violation where mental incompetence prevents an inmate from filing a post-conviction petition); Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (providing a three-part test for applying Burford and noting that courts should consider whether the grounds for the claim at issue arose after the statute of limitations began to run). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Thomson v. Wade
green
2 sentences1999Estate of Thomson v. Wade, 69 N.Y.2d 570 , 516 N.Y.S.2d 614 , 509 N.E.2d 309 (1987). 1999Estate of Thomson v. Wade, 69 N.Y.2d 570 , 516 N.Y.S.2d 614 , 509 N.E.2d 309 (1987). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Murray v. Frick
green
2 sentences1951Such exceptions, and the use of the words, ‘incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial’ do not set forth specific grounds of exceptions, as they are too general and do not give the other party and the court notice of what the party intends to rely upon Murray v. Frick, 277 Pa. 190 , 121 A. 47 , 29 A. L. 1951Such exceptions, and the use of the words, ‘incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial’ do not set forth specific grounds of exceptions, as they are too general and do not give the other party and the court notice of what the party intends to rely upon Murray v. Frick, 277 Pa. 190 , 121 A. 47 , 29 A. L. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.