8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc.green2 sentences2009See id., slip op. at 4-5. 2009See id., slip op. at 4-5. | 2 | 2 |
March v. Levinegreen2 sentences2025In its entirety, the trial court’s order states: Upon the Motion for Leave to Amend Petition to Compel and For Injunctive Relief by Petitioner Arnanda Hearn, the Response to Motion for Leave to Amend Petition to Compel and For Injunctive Relief, by Respondent Sharon Thomas, and after hearing in open Court on March 22, 2023 , the Court orders that Petitioner is granted leave to file the Amended Petition to Compel and For Injunctive Relief[.] This Court has cautioned that “[d]iscretionary decisions must take applicable legal principles into account. 2025In its entirety, the trial court’s order states: Upon the Motion for Leave to Amend Petition to Compel and For Injunctive Relief by Petitioner Arnanda Hearn, the Response to Motion for Leave to Amend Petition to Compel and For Injunctive Relief, by Respondent Sharon Thomas, and after hearing in open Court on March 22, 2023 , the Court orders that Petitioner is granted leave to file the Amended Petition to Compel and For Injunctive Relief[.] This Court has cautioned that “[d]iscretionary decisions must take applicable legal principles into account. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blandgreen1 sentence2008See Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 662-68 (discussing history and purpose of proportionality review and finding Tennessee's method adequate to identify and invalidate aberrant death sentences). | 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 v. Hall
green
2 sentences2010Our supreme court rejected Hall’s claim and held that “[t]hough expert testimony is admissible to show that because of mental disease or defect, a defendant lacked the capacity to form the mental state required to constitute the offense. . . , the testimony in this case did not meet that standard.” Id. at 692 . 2010Our supreme court rejected Hall’s claim and held that “[t]hough expert testimony is admissible to show that because of a mental disease or defect, a defendant lacked the capacity to form the mental state required to constitute the offense. . . , the testimony in this case did not meet that standard.” Id. at 692 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Winslow Watson v. Tennessee Department of Correction, Tennessee Board of Paroles, CCA, and Jody Benjamin
green
2 sentences2002The trial court’s conclusion is consistent with this court’s prior ruling in Watson v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 970 S.W.2d 494 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). 2001The trial court’s conclusion is consistent with this court’s prior ruling in Watson v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 970 S.W.2d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). -4- IV. | 2 | 2001–2002 |
State v. Hall
green
1 sentence2002The Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn.1999), filed on November 15, 1999, does not address the case cited by Mr. Hall, or the challenged jury instruction. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.