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 4 courts 2000–2023 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. Garrettgreen2 sentences2016The trial court deputy clerk signed an affidavit stating in part “I . . . have discovered that there was no order ever done.” Trial counsel signed an affidavit that states in part, “Upon my recollection, no Order by the trial court, granting or denying my Motion to Sever was ever entered.” Concerning motions to sever offenses already joined in an indictment, or consolidating offenses charged in separate indictments, there is “both the need for a hearing and the equally important requirement that the trial court support its ensuing ruling with findings of fact and conclusion of law.” State v. G 2011For these reasons, our supreme court has emphasized “both the need for a hearing and the equally important requirement that the trial court support its ensuing ruling with findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
Parker v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.green1 sentence2023See, e.g., Parker v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 591 S.W.2d 755 (Tenn. 1979); Hagan v. Potomac Corp., No. 2021-04-0105, 2022 TN Wrk. | 1 | 1 |
Spicer v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See id. | 1 | 1 |
Staten v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Staten v. State, 191 Tenn. 157 , 232 S.W.2d 18, 20 (1950) (noting that Tennessee Supreme Court does not “render advisory opinions on questions which are premature and contingent and may never arise in the future”). 2000See, e.g., Staten v. State, 191 Tenn. 157 , 232 S.W.2d 18, 20 (1950) (noting that Tennessee Supreme Court does not “render advisory opinions on questions which are premature and contingent and may never arise in the future”). | 1 | 1 |
Rogers Group, Inc. v. Huddlestongreen1 sentence2000Although the rule is well-established that taxing legislation should be liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer and strictly construed against the taxing authority, it is an equally important principle of Tennessee tax law that “exemptions from taxation are construed against the taxpayer who must shoulder the heavy and exacting burden of proving the exemption.” Rogers Group, Inc. v. Huddleston, 900 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Woodsgreen1 sentence2000The exemption “must be expressed in clear language which includes the taxpayer,” and it “must not be broadened beyond the command of the provision.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Woods, 708 S.W.2d 374, 378 (Tenn.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.