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 2 courts 1930–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ridout v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 270 , 30 S.W.2d 255, 262 (1930) (recognizing that the de facto doctrine will not serve to validate the acts of the court “where the legality of the court is denied”). 1995See Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 270 , 30 S.W.2d 255, 262 (1930) (recognizing that the de facto doctrine will not serve to validate the acts of the court “where the legality of the court is denied”). | 1 | 2 |
Kidd v. McCanlessgreen2 sentences2007In Kidd v. McCanless, 200 Tenn. 273 , 292 S.W.2d 40 (1956), this Court considered whether the de facto doctrine could be applied to maintain members of the General Assembly in office in view of the invalidity of the apportionment statute. 2007In Kidd v. McCanless, 200 Tenn. 273 , 292 S.W.2d 40 (1956), this Court considered whether the de facto doctrine could be applied to maintain members of the General Assembly in office in view of the invalidity of the apportionment statute. | 1 | 1 |
Mayor of Nashville v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2007In City of Nashville v. Thompson, this Court again invoked the de facto doctrine: A person inducted into an office according to the forms of law is an officer de facto, although incompetent by the provisions of the Constitution to hold the office, and his competency cannot be [ijnquired into by the parties affected by his acts.... [H]is official acts [are] valid and binding, until he is removed in the manner prescribed by law. 80 Tenn. 344, 347-50 (1883). | 1 | 1 |
Bankston v. Stategreen1 sentence2007In Bankston v. State, 908 S.W.2d 194, 196-97 (Tenn.1995), for example, we recognized that a judge acting under color of law and with the acquiescence of the litigants and the public qualifies as a judge in fact, whose rulings control regardless of whether his authority to act violated the constitution. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Newsom v. Biggersgreen1 sentence2007Newsom v. Biggers, 911 S.W.2d 715, 716 (1995), upholding a sentence imposed by a municipal court judge who had been elected to a term shorter than that mandated by article VI, section 4 of our constitution. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Householdergreen1 sentence1995See also State v. Householder, 637 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.App.1982) (holding that if defendant does not object to jurisdiction at proper time, the ground is waived); People v. Bowen, 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 (1991) (defendant cannot attack court’s authority in collateral proceeding); Rodgers v. Rodgers, 503 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind.App.1987) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beaver v. Hall
neutral
2 sentences2007In Beaver v. Hall, 142 Tenn. 416 , 217 S.W. 649 (1920), this Court applied the de facto concept to uphold the rulings of a court despite a subsequent declaration of invalidity: We believe that the same consideration of public policy that led the courts to adopt the de facto doctrine as a means of protecting the rights of the public who deal with officers acting under color of authority should be invoked in this case to protect the acts of a tribunal organized under an act of the Legislature, apparently valid, until there has been a judicial determination of the invalidity of such a court. 1930The latest case in this State which considers the de facto rule is Beaver v. Hall, 142 Tenn., 416 , wherein Mr. *269 Justice McKinney extends the rule to courts operating under'statutes later declared unconstitutional. | 3 | 1930–2007 |
Maxwell Medical, Inc. v. Chumley
green
2 sentences2009Furthermore, the special judge was not a de facto judge because Ferrell “applied the de facto rule because it was announcing a new procedure to be followed in future cases.” Id. at 898 n.1. 2009The Court reasoned that, “[i]f the procedural requirements to appoint a special judge are not met and our Court upholds the judgment of the judge not properly designated, the mandates of Ferrell...become meaningless.” Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bowman v. City of Moorhead
green
2 sentences2007For example, in Bowman v. City of Moorhead, 228 Minn. 35 , 36 N.W.2d 7 (1949), the Supreme Court of Minnesota determined that the home rule charter of a city had several irregularities, including the failure of publication in accordance with the state constitution. 2007For example, in Bowman v. City of Moorhead, 228 Minn. 35 , 36 N.W.2d 7 (1949), the Supreme Court of Minnesota determined that the home rule charter of a city had several irregularities, including the failure of publication in accordance with the state constitution. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rodgers v. Rodgers
green
1 sentence1995See also State v. Householder, 637 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.App.1982) (holding that if defendant does not object to jurisdiction at proper time, the ground is waived); People v. Bowen, 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 (1991) (defendant cannot attack court’s authority in collateral proceeding); Rodgers v. Rodgers, 503 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind.App.1987) (same). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Bowen
green
2 sentences1995See also State v. Householder, 637 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.App.1982) (holding that if defendant does not object to jurisdiction at proper time, the ground is waived); People v. Bowen, 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 (1991) (defendant cannot attack court’s authority in collateral proceeding); Rodgers v. Rodgers, 503 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind.App.1987) (same). 1995See also State v. Householder, 637 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.App.1982) (holding that if defendant does not object to jurisdiction at proper time, the ground is waived); People v. Bowen, 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 (1991) (defendant cannot attack court’s authority in collateral proceeding); Rodgers v. Rodgers, 503 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind.App.1987) (same). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
McDowell v. United States
green
2 sentences1979McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596 , 16 S.Ct. 111 , 40 L.Ed. 271 (1895); Blackburn v. State, 40 Tenn. 690 (1859). 1979McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596 , 16 S.Ct. 111 , 40 L.Ed. 271 (1895); Blackburn v. State, 40 Tenn. 690 (1859). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Blackburn v. State
neutral
1 sentence1979McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596 , 16 S.Ct. 111 , 40 L.Ed. 271 (1895); Blackburn v. State, 40 Tenn. 690 (1859). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Clayton Dawson v. Lynn Bomar, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary
green
1 sentence1967Wilson in Dawson v. Bomar, 6 Cir., 322 F.2d 445 , wherein that court held that when a Tennessee statute authorized death by electrocution for rape it would not be declared unconstitutional because of an alleged malapportionment of the Tennessee Legislature in view of the de facto doctrine and the doctrine of avoidance of chaos and confusion. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Ekern v. McGovern
green
2 sentences1956Once it is determined that the present incumbents are not de jure officers, they have no color of authority and could not serve as de facto officers. 46 C.J. sec. 367, p. 1054; Ekern v. McGovern, 1913, 154 Wis. 157 , 142 N.W. 595 , 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 796.” It seems obvious and we therefore hold that if the Act of 1901 is to be declared unconstitutional, then the de facto doctrine cannot be applied to maintain the present members of the General Assembly in office. 1956Once it is determined that the present incumbents are not de jure officers, they have no color of authority and could not serve as de facto officers. 46 C.J. sec. 367, p. 1054; Ekern v. McGovern, 1913, 154 Wis. 157 , 142 N.W. 595 , 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 796.” It seems obvious and we therefore hold that if the Act of 1901 is to be declared unconstitutional, then the de facto doctrine cannot be applied to maintain the present members of the General Assembly in office. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Brewer v. State
neutral
1 sentence1930In Brewer v. State, 74 Tenn., 198 , a conviction for rape, in which case a special judge elected by the bar presided, the court applied the de facto rule. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.