oft-quoted principle (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

oft-quoted principle in Tennessee

8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2013 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Berger v. United Statesred
scotus · 1935 · cited in 5 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1997–2013
2 sentences

2013We are mindful of the oft quoted principle that a prosecutor must be free to present his arguments with logical force and vigor, “[b]ut, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 , 55 S.Ct. 629, 633 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935).

2013We are mindful of the oft quoted principle that a prosecutor must be free to present his arguments with logical force and vigor, “[b]ut, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 , 55 S.Ct. 629, 633 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935).

15
McBee v. Stategreen
tenn · 1963 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977Quite aside from the oft-quoted rule that the “verdict of the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflict in favor of the theory of the State”, McBee v. State, 213 Tenn. 15, 20 , 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (1963), there is for consideration the fact that the credibility of alibi witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the jury, Turner v. State, 187 Tenn. 309 , 213 S.W.2d 281 (1948).

1977Quite aside from the oft-quoted rule that the “verdict of the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflict in favor of the theory of the State”, McBee v. State, 213 Tenn. 15, 20 , 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (1963), there is for consideration the fact that the credibility of alibi witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the jury, Turner v. State, 187 Tenn. 309 , 213 S.W.2d 281 (1948).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Faretta v. California green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

1987The court cited Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2534 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1974), where the United States Supreme Court earlier explained that: An unwanted counsel “represents” the defendant only through a tenuous and unacceptable legal fiction.

1987The court cited Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2534 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1974), where the United States Supreme Court earlier explained that: An unwanted counsel “represents” the defendant only through a tenuous and unacceptable legal fiction.

11987–1987
Turner v. State green
tenn · 1948
2 sentences

1977Quite aside from the oft-quoted rule that the “verdict of the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflict in favor of the theory of the State”, McBee v. State, 213 Tenn. 15, 20 , 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (1963), there is for consideration the fact that the credibility of alibi witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the jury, Turner v. State, 187 Tenn. 309 , 213 S.W.2d 281 (1948).

1977Quite aside from the oft-quoted rule that the “verdict of the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflict in favor of the theory of the State”, McBee v. State, 213 Tenn. 15, 20 , 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (1963), there is for consideration the fact that the credibility of alibi witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are within the exclusive province of the jury, Turner v. State, 187 Tenn. 309 , 213 S.W.2d 281 (1948).

11977–1977
Leeper v. State green
tenn · 1899
2 sentences

1960(Citing authorities.) ” The oft quoted rule found in several of our cases in Tennessee is that the difference between the power to pass the law and the power to adopt rules and regulations to carry it into effect was long ago stated in these words: “The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. ’ ’ Leeper v. State, 103 Tenn. 500, 526 , 53 S.W. 962 , 967, 48 L.R.A. 167 .

1960(Citing authorities.) ” The oft quoted rule found in several of our cases in Tennessee is that the difference between the power to pass the law and the power to adopt rules and regulations to carry it into effect was long ago stated in these words: “The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. ’ ’ Leeper v. State, 103 Tenn. 500, 526 , 53 S.W. 962 , 967, 48 L.R.A. 167 .

11960–1960
Department of Public Welfare v. National Help \U\" Ass'n" green
tenn · 1954
2 sentences

1960Then we have the latest review of the authorities in this State set out in the case of Department of Public Welfare v. National Help “U” Ass’n, 197 Tenn. 8, 13 , 270 S.W.2d 337 ; and the same need not be repeated here.

1960Then we have the latest review of the authorities in this State set out in the case of Department of Public Welfare v. National Help “U” Ass’n, 197 Tenn. 8, 13 , 270 S.W.2d 337 ; and the same need not be repeated here.

11960–1960

Where else courts name it

WI 10 (1964–2004) TN 8 (1960–2013) WA 8 (1931–2005) CA 7 (1962–2010) IL 6 (1973–2011) KY 5 (1931–2021) NY 5 (1907–1991) AL 4 (1914–1984) MD 4 (1970–1980) MT 4 (1960–1987) PA 4 (1926–1981) MO 3 (1962–1990) KS 3 (1968–1983) FL 3 (1980–1999) LA 3 (1979–2003) OR 2 (1958–2024) NE 2 (1984–1992) NJ 2 (1990–1995) MA 2 (1983–1997) TX 2 (1998–2016) ID 2 (1979–1979) NC 2 (1984–1985) MS 2 (1974–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check