clear prejudicial error (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

clear prejudicial error in Tennessee

6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2017 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Nagarajan v. Terrygreen
tennctapp · 2003 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2004–2017
2 sentences

2017The law is also clear that “appellate courts should not second guess a trial court’s decision on a motion for a continuance unless the record, reviewed as a whole, shows a clear abuse of discretion or that a clear prejudicial error has been committed.” Nagarajan v. Terry, 151 S.W.3d 166, 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

2010“Accordingly, the appellate courts should not second guess a trial court’s decision on a motion for a continuance unless the record, reviewed as a whole, shows a clear abuse of discretion or that a clear prejudicial error has been committed.” Nagarajan v. Terry, 151 S.W.3d 166, 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted).

33
Owens v. Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc.green
tennctapp · 2001 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2003–2013
2 sentences

2013Blake, 952 S.W.2d at 415 ; Owens v. Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., 77 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159, 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

2003Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d at 415 ; Owens v. Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., 77 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159, 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

33
Trinity Industries, Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co.green
tennctapp · 2001 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2003–2013
2 sentences

2013Blake, 952 S.W.2d at 415 ; Owens v. Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., 77 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159, 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

2003Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d at 415 ; Owens v. Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., 77 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159, 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

33

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc. green
tenn · 1997
2 sentences

2013Blake, 952 S.W.2d at 415 ; Owens v. Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., 77 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Trinity Indus., Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159, 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

2004Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d at 415 ; Nagarajan v. Terry, 151 S.W.3d 166, 172 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003).

42003–2013

Where else courts name it

TN 6 (2003–2017) TX 6 (2012–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check