8 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Eldergreen2 sentences1999Elder, 982 S.W.2d at 877 . 1999Elder, 982 S.W.2d at 877 . | 1 | 3 |
Faulkner v. Stategreen1 sentence2015“The determination of whether habeas corpus relief should be granted is a question of law.” Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)). | 1 | 1 |
Carpenter v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Initially, we note that “[a]ppellate counsel are not constitutionally required to raise every conceivable issue on appeal.” Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 887 (Tenn. 2004) (citing King v. State, 989 S.W.2d 319, 334 (Tenn. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Hart v. Stategreen1 sentence2015“The determination of whether habeas corpus relief should be granted is a question of law.” Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)). | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Initially, we note that “[a]ppellate counsel are not constitutionally required to raise every conceivable issue on appeal.” Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 887 (Tenn. 2004) (citing King v. State, 989 S.W.2d 319, 334 (Tenn. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Ledune v. Stategreen2 sentences1987See Ledune v. State, 589 S.W.2d 936, 940 (Tenn. Crim. 1987See Ledune v. State, 589 S.W.2d 936, 940 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979), [defendant left Tennessee and went to California the day following the homicide]; Rogers v. State, 2 Tenn.Crim.App. 491, 455 S.W.2d 182 (1970), [defendant left Tennessee and was later apprehended in Illinois]. | 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. Trusty
red
1 sentence2010Elder, No. 03C01-9702-CR-00053 (citing Trusty, 919 S.W.2d at 311 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Beck v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1998Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 646 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980)(discussing the due process violation which occurs if a jury is required to choose between conviction of a capital offense or acquittal, even though there is evidence in the record to support an instruction and conviction of a lesser non-capital offense); see also Strader, supra, (discussing the denial of the right to a jury trial which results when a trial court fails to charge the jury with respect to any lesser offenses even though the ev 1998Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 646 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980)(discussing the due process violation which occurs if a jury is required to choose between conviction of a capital offense or acquittal, even though there is evidence in the record to support an instruction and conviction of a lesser non-capital offense); see also Strader, supra, (discussing the denial of the right to a jury trial which results when a trial court fails to charge the jury with respect to any lesser offenses even though the ev | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Schad v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1998Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 646 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980)(discussing the due process violation which occurs if a jury is required to choose between conviction of a capital offense or acquittal, even though there is evidence in the record to support an instruction and conviction of a lesser non-capital offense); see also Strader, supra, (discussing the denial of the right to a jury trial which results when a trial court fails to charge the jury with respect to any lesser offenses even though the ev 1998Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 646 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980)(discussing the due process violation which occurs if a jury is required to choose between conviction of a capital offense or acquittal, even though there is evidence in the record to support an instruction and conviction of a lesser non-capital offense); see also Strader, supra, (discussing the denial of the right to a jury trial which results when a trial court fails to charge the jury with respect to any lesser offenses even though the ev | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Rogers v. State
green
2 sentences1987See Ledune v. State, 589 S.W.2d 936, 940 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979), [defendant left Tennessee and went to California the day following the homicide]; Rogers v. State, 2 Tenn.Crim.App. 491, 455 S.W.2d 182 (1970), [defendant left Tennessee and was later apprehended in Illinois]. 1987See Ledune v. State, 589 S.W.2d 936, 940 (Tenn.Crim.App.1979), [defendant left Tennessee and went to California the day following the homicide]; Rogers v. State, 2 Tenn.Crim.App. 491, 455 S.W.2d 182 (1970), [defendant left Tennessee and was later apprehended in Illinois]. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.