7 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1969–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mary Jane Bridgewater v. Robert S. Adamczykgreen2 sentences2016App. Bd. Nov. 16, 2015), the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board cited Bridgewater v. Adamczyk, 421 S.W.3d 617, 627 (Tenn. App. 2013), which held that the "preponderance of the evidence" lies in the finding established "with greater convincing effect" by the evidence introduced at a hearing. 2015App. Bd. Nov. 16, 2015), the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board cited Bridgewater v. Adamczyk, 421 S.W.3d 617, 627 (Tenn. App. 2013), in holding that the preponderance of the evidence lies in the fmding established "with greater convincing effect" by the evidence introduced at a hearing. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Talleygreen1 sentence2013State v. Talley, 307 S.W.3d 723, 729 (Tenn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Sherrod v. Wixgreen1 sentence1998The record before us does not include a transcript or statement of the evidence from that first hearing.2 We cannot undertake a de novo review under Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P., of a trial court’s decision based on factual findings without a record of the evidence introduced at that hearing. “[W]e must assume that the record, had it been preserved, would have contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings.” Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn.App. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ballardgreen1 sentence1997See State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560-61 (Tenn.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1979Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, p. 1628 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), we are satisfied that the evidence introduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence preponderated in favor of the State’s witnesses, and against defendant’s version of the events surrounding his confession to the police officers. 1979Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, p. 1628 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), we are satisfied that the evidence introduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence preponderated in favor of the State’s witnesses, and against defendant’s version of the events surrounding his confession to the police officers. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Lego v. Twomey
green
2 sentences1979Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). 1979Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State Ex Rel. Dickens v. Bomar
green
2 sentences1969Dickins v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 493 , 381 S.W.2d 287 . *602 The record in this case consists of (1) the entire record of the petitioner’s original trial and appeal, including appellate briefs and the Supreme Court’s opinion affirming the conviction, filed as an exhibit to the respondent’s answer; (2) the entire record of the first trial upon this habeas corpus petition, including the appeal therein, the parties stipulating that the evidence introduced in that hearing, as preserved in the Bill of Exceptions thereof, should be treated and considered as proof properly and regularly presented at the i 1969Dickins v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 493 , 381 S.W.2d 287 . *602 The record in this case consists of (1) the entire record of the petitioner’s original trial and appeal, including appellate briefs and the Supreme Court’s opinion affirming the conviction, filed as an exhibit to the respondent’s answer; (2) the entire record of the first trial upon this habeas corpus petition, including the appeal therein, the parties stipulating that the evidence introduced in that hearing, as preserved in the Bill of Exceptions thereof, should be treated and considered as proof properly and regularly presented at the i | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.