Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1971–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nance v. State Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2017In Scarbrough, the Appeals Board held that the employer must prove the following factors to bar an employee from benefits based on the willful misconduct defense: (1) the employee's actual, as opposed to constructive, notice of the violated rule, (2) the employee's understanding of the dangers involved in violating the rule, (3) the employer's bona fide enforcement of the rule, and (4) the employee's lack of a valid excuse for violating the rule. 3 The parties stipulated the accuracy of the Wage Statement completed by the Bakery, which established that Mr. Resto's average weekly wage was $781. | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert SCHWARTZ, Appellantgreen1 sentence2009By stating that the level of punishment for violations of the rules and regulations promulgated under the 1980 Securities Act is subject to a heightened knowledge requirement, the legislature sent a clear signal that such a requirement does not exist *694 for violations of the Act itself. 15 See, e.g., United States v. Schwartz, 464 F.2d 499, 509 (2d Cir.1972) (holding that the last sentence of 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(a), which matches the second independent clause of section 409(a) of the 1956 Uniform Securities Act, “makes it clear that the statute contemplates a ‘willful’ violation by one who has | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Stategreen2 sentences1977See Carroll v. State, 212 Tenn. 464 , 370 S.W.2d 523 (1963). 1977See Carroll v. State, 212 Tenn. 464 , 370 S.W.2d 523 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2005The defendant contends that the trial court violated the rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), by applying enhancement factors neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant to enhance his sentence from the minimum three years to five years. 2005The defendant contends that the trial court violated the rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), by applying enhancement factors neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant to enhance his sentence from the minimum three years to five years. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities
green
1 sentence2017Panel 2000): "[i]n evaluating whether the employee's conduct was willful ... the court must distinguish between those cases in which the employee's conduct was accidental, n egligent, inadvertent, thoughtless, an error of judgment, or even reckless, and those cases in whi ch the conduct was willful.' Mitchell, 368 S.W.3d at 452 . 4 In view of the above authority, the Court holds the Bakery failed to show that, at a hearing on the merits, it will likely prevail in establishing that Mr. Resto's injury was due to his willful violation of a safety rule and/or his willful removal of a safety device | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Kendricks
green
1 sentence1996Although the basis for admitting the evidence is not clear from the record, it appears that the statements may have been offered as “fresh complaint.” In this regard, we note that their admission at this stage of the trial violated the rule recently set forth in State v. Kendricks, 891 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn.1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gray v. State
green
1 sentence1979The defendant next contends that the trial court violated the rule in Gray v. State, 538 S.W.2d 391 (Tenn.1976), by ordering some of the sentences imposed by the jury to be served consecutively. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences1971He alleged that in his trial the court violated the rule of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 . 1971He alleged that in his trial the court violated the rule of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.