8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Millergreen2 sentences2018When evidence has been destroyed, the doctrine of spoliation may apply, but not the missing evidence rule.6 Id. 5 The plaintiff requested that the court instruct the jury as follows: The Court instructs you that Wackenhut was required by Court Order to produce any incident reports prepared by security guards at Pilot prior to June 24, 2007. 2018The plaintiff’s proposed jury instruction focused solely on Wackenhut’s failure to produce the incident reports Mr. Mangrum claimed to have completed each time he used his handcuffs while on duty at Pilot.5 Under the missing evidence rule, the trier of fact may infer that missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the party that failed to offer it into evidence if the evidence was in that party’s exclusive possession and the evidence “would be ‘capable of shedding light on a material contested issue.’” Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734 , 740 n.3 (Tenn. 2015) (qu | 1 | 5 |
Runnells v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2020See Runnells v. Rogers, 596 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Tenn. 1980) (holding that the missing evidence rule only applies “when the plaintiff’s proof and the legal deduction therefrom make a prima facie case against the defendant”). 2020See Runnells v. Rogers, 596 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Tenn. 1980) (holding that the missing evidence rule only applies “when the plaintiff’s proof and the legal deduction therefrom make a prima facie case against the defendant”). | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. Marylandgreen1 sentence2017Counsel said he was not accusing the district attorney’s office of wrongdoing but requested that the trial court dismiss both charges based on the State’s withholding exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), or, at the very least, provide the jury with a missing evidence instruction pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Robert J. SACRAMONA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., and the Budd Company, Defendants, Appelleesgreen2 sentences2000See Sacramona v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 F.3d 444, 447 (1st Cir.1997). 2000See Sacramona v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 F.3d 444, 447 (1st Cir.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp.green2 sentences2000See Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 , 675 A.2d 829, 831-33 (1996); DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp., 601 So.2d at 821-22 . 2000See Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 , 675 A.2d 829, 831-33 (1996); DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp., 601 So.2d at 821-22 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2000See generally State v. Wilson, 687 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984). 2000See generally State v. Wilson, 687 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp.green2 sentences2000Courts should consider giving the missing evidence instruction where the missing evidence is shown to be unavailable due to questionable negligence, see DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp., 601 So.2d 818, 822 (Miss.1992), or dubious mishandling. 2000Courts should consider giving the missing evidence instruction where the missing evidence is shown to be unavailable due to questionable negligence, see DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp., 601 So.2d 818, 822 (Miss.1992), or dubious mishandling. | 1 | 1 |
Fares v. Foxgreen2 sentences2000See Fares v. Fox, 198 A.D.2d 396 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 892, 893 (App.Div.1993). 2000See Fares v. Fox, 198 A.D.2d 396 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 892, 893 (App.Div.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lea Ann Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018The plaintiff’s proposed jury instruction focused solely on Wackenhut’s failure to produce the incident reports Mr. Mangrum claimed to have completed each time he used his handcuffs while on duty at Pilot.5 Under the missing evidence rule, the trier of fact may infer that missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the party that failed to offer it into evidence if the evidence was in that party’s exclusive possession and the evidence “would be ‘capable of shedding light on a material contested issue.’” Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734 , 740 n.3 (Tenn. 2015) (qu | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2017Counsel said he was not accusing the district attorney’s office of wrongdoing but requested that the trial court dismiss both charges based on the State’s withholding exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), or, at the very least, provide the jury with a missing evidence instruction pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Elchlepp v. Hatfield
green
1 sentence2011We recently reviewed the missing witness rule in Elchlepp v. Hatfield, 294 S.W.3d 146 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008), and we reviewed the missing evidence rule in Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.