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.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1928–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Goodmangreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., State v. Goodman, 90 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Tenn. 2002) (“Where the factual findings necessary to resolve the [pretrial] motion are intertwined with the general issue, a ruling must be deferred until trial since, in criminal cases, there simply is no pretrial procedure akin to summary judgment for adjudicating questions of fact involving the general issue of guilt or innocence.”). -4- courts of this state “follow the ancient rule that the court will not review the judgment of the grand jury for the purpose of determining whether or not the finding was on sufficient evidence.” Parton v. St | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gonzalesgreen1 sentence2019App. 1970); see State v. Gonzales, 638 S.W.2d 841, 845 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Parton v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., State v. Goodman, 90 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Tenn. 2002) (“Where the factual findings necessary to resolve the [pretrial] motion are intertwined with the general issue, a ruling must be deferred until trial since, in criminal cases, there simply is no pretrial procedure akin to summary judgment for adjudicating questions of fact involving the general issue of guilt or innocence.”). -4- courts of this state “follow the ancient rule that the court will not review the judgment of the grand jury for the purpose of determining whether or not the finding was on sufficient evidence.” Parton v. St | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. Wiser
neutral
2 sentences2003He relied upon Morgan v. *313 Wiser, 711 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.Ct.App.1985), an opinion in which this court briefly discussed the concept, history and rationale behind this ancient doctrine. 2003Treasure trove refers to valuables buried on the land of another, where “the treasure [was] hidden or concealed so long as to indicate that the owner is probably dead or unknown.” 711 S.W.2d at 222 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cottrell v. Griffiths
green
2 sentences1980The leading Tennessee case adopting the rule is Cottrell v. Griffiths, 108 Tenn. 191 , 65 S.W. 397 , 57 L.R.A. 332 (1901). 1980The leading Tennessee case adopting the rule is Cottrell v. Griffiths, 108 Tenn. 191 , 65 S.W. 397 , 57 L.R.A. 332 (1901). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Neal v. Delaware
green
2 sentences1973Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, supra 103 U.S. 370 , 26 L.Ed. 567 (1881).” In Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 , 92 S.Ct. 2163 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), the Court reiterated the ancient principle in this way: “The essence of petitioner’s claim is this: that the tribunals which indicted and convicted him were constituted in a manner that is prohibited by the Constitution and by statute; that the impact of that error on any individual trial is un-ascertainable; and that consequently any indictment or conviction returned by such tribunals must be set asi 1973Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, supra 103 U.S. 370 , 26 L.Ed. 567 (1881).” In Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 , 92 S.Ct. 2163 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), the Court reiterated the ancient principle in this way: “The essence of petitioner’s claim is this: that the tribunals which indicted and convicted him were constituted in a manner that is prohibited by the Constitution and by statute; that the impact of that error on any individual trial is un-ascertainable; and that consequently any indictment or conviction returned by such tribunals must be set asi | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Strauder v. West Virginia
red
2 sentences1973Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, supra 103 U.S. 370 , 26 L.Ed. 567 (1881).” In Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 , 92 S.Ct. 2163 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), the Court reiterated the ancient principle in this way: “The essence of petitioner’s claim is this: that the tribunals which indicted and convicted him were constituted in a manner that is prohibited by the Constitution and by statute; that the impact of that error on any individual trial is un-ascertainable; and that consequently any indictment or conviction returned by such tribunals must be set asi 1973Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, supra 103 U.S. 370 , 26 L.Ed. 567 (1881).” In Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 , 92 S.Ct. 2163 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), the Court reiterated the ancient principle in this way: “The essence of petitioner’s claim is this: that the tribunals which indicted and convicted him were constituted in a manner that is prohibited by the Constitution and by statute; that the impact of that error on any individual trial is un-ascertainable; and that consequently any indictment or conviction returned by such tribunals must be set asi | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Peters v. Kiff
green
2 sentences1973Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, supra 103 U.S. 370 , 26 L.Ed. 567 (1881).” In Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 , 92 S.Ct. 2163 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), the Court reiterated the ancient principle in this way: “The essence of petitioner’s claim is this: that the tribunals which indicted and convicted him were constituted in a manner that is prohibited by the Constitution and by statute; that the impact of that error on any individual trial is un-ascertainable; and that consequently any indictment or conviction returned by such tribunals must be set asi 1973Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, supra 103 U.S. 370 , 26 L.Ed. 567 (1881).” In Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 , 92 S.Ct. 2163 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), the Court reiterated the ancient principle in this way: “The essence of petitioner’s claim is this: that the tribunals which indicted and convicted him were constituted in a manner that is prohibited by the Constitution and by statute; that the impact of that error on any individual trial is un-ascertainable; and that consequently any indictment or conviction returned by such tribunals must be set asi | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State of Maine v. Cyr
neutral
2 sentences1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. 1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Altwatter
green
2 sentences1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. 1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Maida
neutral
2 sentences1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. 1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. . Griffin
green
1 sentence1955This ancient doctrine has been repudiated by many modern authorities as illustrated by the following cases: State v. Griffin, 175 N. C. 767 , 94 S. E. 678 ; Honselman v. People, 168 Ill. 172 , 48 N. E. 304 ; State v. Start, supra; Ex parte De Ford, 14 Old. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Whitmarsh
green
1 sentence1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Ex Parte De Ford
green
1 sentence1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Honselman v. People
green
2 sentences1955This ancient doctrine has been repudiated by many modern authorities as illustrated by the following cases: State v. Griffin, 175 N. C. 767 , 94 S. E. 678 ; Honselman v. People, 168 Ill. 172 , 48 N. E. 304 ; State v. Start, supra; Ex parte De Ford, 14 Old. 1955This ancient doctrine has been repudiated by many modern authorities as illustrated by the following cases: State v. Griffin, 175 N. C. 767 , 94 S. E. 678 ; Honselman v. People, 168 Ill. 172 , 48 N. E. 304 ; State v. Start, supra; Ex parte De Ford, 14 Old. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Griffin
neutral
1 sentence1955This ancient doctrine has been repudiated by many modern authorities as illustrated by the following cases: State v. Griffin, 175 N. C. 767 , 94 S. E. 678 ; Honselman v. People, 168 Ill. 172 , 48 N. E. 304 ; State v. Start, supra; Ex parte De Ford, 14 Old. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Wittmann v. Berger
neutral
1 sentence1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Means v. State
neutral
1 sentence1955Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 ; Means v. State, 125 Wis. 650 , 104 N. W. 815 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N. W. 580 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce 40 , 29 Del. 40 , 96 A. 207 ; State v. Altwatter, 29 Idaho 107, 157 P. 256 ; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 514 , 198 A. 743; 48 Am. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Bragg v. Osborn
green
1 sentence1928We have here a case of an individual trustee who mixed the funds of a single cestui que trust with his own account — not such a case as Bragg v. Osborn, 147 Tenn., 381 , 248 S. W., 19 , in which the trustee deposited in a common account funds belonging to various persons and it would be impossible to trace title to any particular part of the- deposits, and the claim of one beneficiary could therefore rise no higher than the claim of others whose money was deposited in the same general fund. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.