8 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abbott v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.green2 sentences2025The jury charge will be “viewed in its entirety and considered as a whole in order to determine whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error.” Abbott by Abbott v. American Honda Motor Car Co. Inc., 682 S.W.2d 206, 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (citations omitted). 2006“Under Tennessee law the jury charge will be viewed in its entirety and considered as a whole in order to determine whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error.” Otis, 850 S.W.2d at 446 (quoting Abbott v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 682 S.W.2d 206 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984)). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Otis v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006“Under Tennessee law the jury charge will be viewed in its entirety and considered as a whole in order to determine whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error.” Otis, 850 S.W.2d at 446 (quoting Abbott v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 682 S.W.2d 206 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984)). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Cook
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 324 . 2005Id. at 324 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Hayes v. Schweickart's Upholstering Co.
green
2 sentences1984See Farguharson, supra; Cooper Paintings & Coatings, Inc. v. SCM Corp., 62 Tenn.App. 13 , 457 S.W.2d 864 (1970); and Hayes v. Schweikart’s Upholstering Co., 55 Tenn.App. 442 , 402 S.W.2d 472 (1965). 1984See Farguharson, supra; Cooper Paintings & Coatings, Inc. v. SCM Corp., 62 Tenn.App. 13 , 457 S.W.2d 864 (1970); and Hayes v. Schweikart’s Upholstering Co., 55 Tenn.App. 442 , 402 S.W.2d 472 (1965). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Cooper Paintings & Coatings, Inc. v. SCM Corporation
green
2 sentences1984See Farguharson, supra; Cooper Paintings & Coatings, Inc. v. SCM Corp., 62 Tenn.App. 13 , 457 S.W.2d 864 (1970); and Hayes v. Schweikart’s Upholstering Co., 55 Tenn.App. 442 , 402 S.W.2d 472 (1965). 1984See Farguharson, supra; Cooper Paintings & Coatings, Inc. v. SCM Corp., 62 Tenn.App. 13 , 457 S.W.2d 864 (1970); and Hayes v. Schweikart’s Upholstering Co., 55 Tenn.App. 442 , 402 S.W.2d 472 (1965). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1968In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , the Supreme Court of the United States said, inter alia: “To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his free *286 dom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. 1968In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , the Supreme Court of the United States said, inter alia: “To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his free *286 dom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.