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.
7 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2013 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Momon v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Momon, 18 S.W.3d at 157 (because the court vacated the defendant's conviction on the basis that he was deprived of his fundamental right to testify, the court "need not reach the Sixth Amendment issue of whether the appellant's counsel was ineffective in failing to advise and consult his client concerning his client's right to testify"). 2003See Momon, 18 S.W.3d at 157 (because the court vacated the defendant’s conviction on the basis that he was deprived of his fundamental right to testify, the court “need not reach the Sixth Amendment issue of whether the appellant’s counsel was ineffective in failing to advise and consult his client concerning his client’s right to testify”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Keathlygreen2 sentences2013This is so precisely because the impact of the omission on a discretionary decision is usually enormously difficult to ascertain.” State v. Keathly, 145 S.W.3d 123, 126 (Tenn. Crim. 2010This is so precisely because the impact of the omission on a discretionary decision is usually enormously difficult to ascertain.” Keathly, 145 S.W.3d at 126 (quoting United States v. Pagan, 33 F.3d 125, 129-30 (1st Cir. 1994)) (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. De Alba Pagangreen1 sentence2010This is so precisely because the impact of the omission on a discretionary decision is usually enormously difficult to ascertain.” Keathly, 145 S.W.3d at 126 (quoting United States v. Pagan, 33 F.3d 125, 129-30 (1st Cir. 1994)) (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Roberto Navarro-Floresgreen1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. David K. Buckley, David K. Buckley v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Christopher Leo Millergreen1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Erasmo Maldonado, Jr.green1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coln v. City of Savannah
green
1 sentence2005The rationale of this principle is said to be apparent owing to the “owners superior knowledge of a perilous condition on his premises.” A concomitant principle is also apparent; the owner is not liable for injuries sustained from dangers that were obvious, open, or as well known, to the guest as to the owner, see, Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998), but this rules does not automatically preclude recovery. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Irwin Posner
green
1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. R. Randall Walker, United States of America v. Trula A. Walker
green
1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Robert Phillips
green
1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Walter Barnes
green
1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Lightsey v. Kastner
green
1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Buckley v. United States
green
1 sentence2003See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir.1993); Barnes, 948 F.2d at 332 ; Phillips, 936 F.2d at 1256 ; Walker, 896 F.2d at 301 ; Posner, 868 F.2d at 724 ; United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 1002 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 , 109 S.Ct. 808 , 102 L.Ed.2d 798 (1989); United States v. Navarro-Flores, 628 F.2d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1980); cf. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897-98 (4th Cir.1988) (remanding for failure to meet strictures of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1)(A) and (Q). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Chadwick v. State
green
2 sentences1994Chadwick, 296 S.W.2d at 859 . 1994Chadwick, 296 S.W.2d at 859 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.