7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Correctiongreen1 sentence2024We note that in reviewing pleadings, such as Ms. Mauriello’s pro se motion to continue, we “must give effect to the substance, rather than the form or terminology of a pleading.” Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457, 462 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosp., 325 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tenn. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitalsgreen1 sentence2024We note that in reviewing pleadings, such as Ms. Mauriello’s pro se motion to continue, we “must give effect to the substance, rather than the form or terminology of a pleading.” Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457, 462 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosp., 325 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tenn. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stephensongreen1 sentence2012“In the absence of a motion for continuance . . . any objection to the delayed notice by the State ordinarily should be deemed to have been waived.” State v. Stephenson, 752 S.W.2d 80, 81 (Tenn. 1988) (holding waiver where the defendant did not raise the issue at the trial, at the sentencing hearing, or on the motion for a new trial). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blandgreen1 sentence2006See State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997) (noting that a defendant’s calmness immediately after the killing can support a finding of premeditation). -4- Motion for Continuance The defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue his trial date. | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Stategreen1 sentence2005“When a petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to discover, interview, or present witnesses in support of his defense, these witnesses should be presented by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2002In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 , 10 L. 2002In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 , 10 L. | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Stategreen1 sentence1984See Woods v. State, 552 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tenn.Cr.App.1977). | 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. Simmons
green
1 sentence2019Prejudice Finally, we must determine whether the Defendant was prejudiced by the delay, which is the “final and most important factor in the [speedy trial] analysis.” Simmons, 54 S.W.3d at 760 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Thompson
green
1 sentence2012The “remedy for untimely notice is the option of a continuance for the defense, not preclusion of the State from seeking enhanced punishment.” Thompson, 36 S.W.3d at 115 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.