6 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2026 2 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 of Tennessee v. Charles E. Lowe-Kelleygreen2 sentences2026See State v. Lowe-Kelley, 380 S.W.3d 30, 34 (Tenn. 2012) (“A trial court cannot rule on the merits of a late-filed motion for new trial because the judgment has become final and the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case.”). 2025App. 1989) (footnotes omitted); State v. Lowe-Kelley, 380 S.W.3d 30, 34 (Tenn. 2012) (“A trial court cannot rule on the merits of a late-filed motion for new trial because the judgment has become final, and the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case.”). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Boughgreen2 sentences2015“A trial court cannot rule on the merits of a late-filed motion for new trial because the judgment has become final and the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case.” Lowe-Kelley, 380 S.W.3d at 34 (citing Bough, 152 S.W.3d at 460 ; Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d at 799-800 ). 2012State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tenn.2004); see also Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d at 799-800 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hatchergreen2 sentences2015“A trial court cannot rule on the merits of a late-filed motion for new trial because the judgment has become final and the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case.” Lowe-Kelley, 380 S.W.3d at 34 (citing Bough, 152 S.W.3d at 460 ; Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d at 799-800 ). 2012State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tenn.2004); see also Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d at 799-800 . | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Hallgreen1 sentence1999Davis v. Hall, 920 S.W.2d 213, 218 (Tenn. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. Vanderbilt University
green
1 sentence2013This Court cannot rule on the propriety of deposing Dr. Calundruccio regarding his affidavit or his reasons for not testifying when that issue was never ruled upon by the trial court. -32- On the issue of whether the Burchfields could further depose Dr. Calundruccio regarding his expert opinion, they attempt to rely on this Court’s opinion in White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), but we find such authority unavailing on this issue. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.