8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ritchiegreen1 sentence2005See Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d at 631 . | 1 | 1 |
Murvin v. Cofergreen1 sentence2000See Murvin v. Cofer, 968 S.W.2d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Sims v. Stewart, 973 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); The case now before us presents just such a situation. | 1 | 1 |
Inman v. Inmangreen1 sentence2000Inman v. Inman, 840 S.W.2d 927, 933 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jeffersongreen1 sentence1998In his brief, the petitioner takes issue with the trial court’s order in dismissing the petition in lieu of a remand hearing as ordered by the Supreme Court, citing State v. Jefferson, 938 S.W.2d 1, 21 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pendergrassgreen1 sentence1998App.), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1996); State v. Pendergrass, 795 S.W.2d 150, 155-56 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Archer v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Habeas corpus relief is available in Tennessee only “when it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant’s sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Goadgreen1 sentence1998See State v. Goad, 707 S.W.2d 846, 854 (Tenn. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cuyler v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence2024It was shorthand for the statement in [Cuyler] that “a defendant who shows that a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation need not demonstrate prejudice in order to obtain relief.” Id. at 171 (citing Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 349-50 ) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2010When the issue presented is whether a petitioner was hampered from filing a timely post-conviction petition because of the misrepresentation of his trial counsel, Williams usefully tells us that due process requires only that the petitioner be afforded “a reasonable opportunity after the expiration of the limitations period to present his claim in a meaningful time and manner.” See Williams, 44 S.W.3d at 471 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Rubio
green
1 sentence2009State v. Rubio, 746 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sims v. Stewart
green
1 sentence2000See Murvin v. Cofer, 968 S.W.2d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Sims v. Stewart, 973 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); The case now before us presents just such a situation. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Goad v. State
green
1 sentence1998Such deficient performance was then determined to be prejudicial under Strickland after assessing the following factors: (1) the nature and extent of available mitigating proof; (2) whether substantially similar proof was otherwise presented to the trier of fact; and (3) whether there was strong evidence of aggravating factors so that “the mitigating evidence would not have affected the jury’s determination.” Id. at 371 . 9 There was conflicting evidence on the issue of whether counsel had this report at trial. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.