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 2 courts 1993–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Carrizales-Toledogreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Edwards v. United States, 923 A.2d 840, 848 (D.C.2007) (observing that "there is some disagreement concerning the precise analysis that Seibert mandates"); United States v. Car-rizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142, 1151 (10th Cir.2006) ("Determining the proper application of the Marks rule to Seibert is not easy, because arguably Justice Kennedy's proposed holding in his concurrence was rejected by a majority of the Court.”); United States v. Stewart, 388 F.3d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir.2004) (reading the plurality’s balancing test into Justice Kennedy's requirement of "curative steps”); see also 2009See, e.g., Edwards v. United States, 923 A.2d 840, 848 (D.C.2007) (observing that "there is some disagreement concerning the precise analysis that Seibert mandates"); United States v. Car-rizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142, 1151 (10th Cir.2006) ("Determining the proper application of the Marks rule to Seibert is not easy, because arguably Justice Kennedy's proposed holding in his concurrence was rejected by a majority of the Court.”); United States v. Stewart, 388 F.3d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir.2004) (reading the plurality’s balancing test into Justice Kennedy's requirement of "curative steps”); see also | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Timothy Stewartgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Edwards v. United States, 923 A.2d 840, 848 (D.C.2007) (observing that "there is some disagreement concerning the precise analysis that Seibert mandates"); United States v. Car-rizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142, 1151 (10th Cir.2006) ("Determining the proper application of the Marks rule to Seibert is not easy, because arguably Justice Kennedy's proposed holding in his concurrence was rejected by a majority of the Court.”); United States v. Stewart, 388 F.3d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir.2004) (reading the plurality’s balancing test into Justice Kennedy's requirement of "curative steps”); see also 2009See, e.g., Edwards v. United States, 923 A.2d 840, 848 (D.C.2007) (observing that "there is some disagreement concerning the precise analysis that Seibert mandates"); United States v. Car-rizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142, 1151 (10th Cir.2006) ("Determining the proper application of the Marks rule to Seibert is not easy, because arguably Justice Kennedy's proposed holding in his concurrence was rejected by a majority of the Court.”); United States v. Stewart, 388 F.3d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir.2004) (reading the plurality’s balancing test into Justice Kennedy's requirement of "curative steps”); see also | 3 | 3 |
Edwards v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Edwards v. United States, 923 A.2d 840, 848 (D.C.2007) (observing that "there is some disagreement concerning the precise analysis that Seibert mandates"); United States v. Car-rizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142, 1151 (10th Cir.2006) ("Determining the proper application of the Marks rule to Seibert is not easy, because arguably Justice Kennedy's proposed holding in his concurrence was rejected by a majority of the Court.”); United States v. Stewart, 388 F.3d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir.2004) (reading the plurality’s balancing test into Justice Kennedy's requirement of "curative steps”); see also 2009See, e.g., Edwards v. United States, 923 A.2d 840, 848 (D.C.2007) (observing that "there is some disagreement concerning the precise analysis that Seibert mandates"); United States v. Car-rizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142, 1151 (10th Cir.2006) ("Determining the proper application of the Marks rule to Seibert is not easy, because arguably Justice Kennedy's proposed holding in his concurrence was rejected by a majority of the Court.”); United States v. Stewart, 388 F.3d 1079, 1090 (7th Cir.2004) (reading the plurality’s balancing test into Justice Kennedy's requirement of "curative steps”); see also | 3 | 3 |
Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2014King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771, 781 (D.C.Cir.1991). 2014King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771, 781 (D.C.Cir.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Grutter v. Bollingerred2 sentences2013But see Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 325 , 123 S.Ct. 2325 , 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) ("[The Marks test] is more easily stated than applied to the various [Supreme Court] opinions .... 2013But see Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 325 , 123 S.Ct. 2325 , 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) ("[The Marks test] is more easily stated than applied to the various [Supreme Court] opinions .... | 1 | 1 |
Nichols v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013It does not seem 'useful to pursue the Marks inquiry to the utmost logical possibility when it has so obviously baffled and divided the lower courts that have considered it.’” (quoting Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 745-46 , 114 S.Ct. 1921 , 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994))). . 2013It does not seem 'useful to pursue the Marks inquiry to the utmost logical possibility when it has so obviously baffled and divided the lower courts that have considered it.’” (quoting Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 745-46 , 114 S.Ct. 1921 , 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994))). . | 1 | 1 |
Marks v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013In its Marks opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that “[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. at 193, 97 S.Ct. 990 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). 31 Most courts that have applied the Marks rule to J. 2013In its Marks opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that “[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. at 193, 97 S.Ct. 990 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). 31 Most courts that have applied the Marks rule to J. | 1 | 1 |
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp. v. NCS Power, Inc.green2 sentences2013Americas Corp. v. NCS Power, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d 366, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Ainsworth v. Cargotec USA, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-236-KS-MTP, 2011 WL 6291812 , at *2 (S.D. 2013Americas Corp. v. NCS Power, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d 366, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Ainsworth v. Cargotec USA, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-236-KS-MTP, 2011 WL 6291812 , at *2 (S.D. | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Marco M. Northerngreen2 sentences2009L.Rev. 1093, 1094 (Summer 2005). 262 S.W.3d at 759-60 (footnote placed in brackets). 2009L.Rev. 1093, 1094 (Summer 2005). 262 S.W.3d at 759-60 (footnote placed in brackets). | 1 | 1 |
Rose Marks, D/B/A Middlebelt-Eureka Shell v. Shell Oil Company, a Delaware Corporationgreen1 sentence1993Marks, 830 F.2d at 69-70 (footnote omitted & emphasis added.) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The above reasoning is persuasive, and it is our opinion the trial court must give the proponent of a motion to amend a full chance to be heard on the motion, must consider the motion in light of the amendment policy embodied in T.R.C.P. 15.01, that amendments must be freely allowed; and in the event the motion to amend is denied, the trial court must give a reasoned explanation for his action. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Grutter v. Bollingerred2 sentences2013But see Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 325 , 123 S.Ct. 2325 , 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) ("[The Marks test] is more easily stated than applied to the various [Supreme Court] opinions .... 2013But see Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 325 , 123 S.Ct. 2325 , 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) ("[The Marks test] is more easily stated than applied to the various [Supreme Court] opinions .... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gregg v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2013In its Marks opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that “[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. at 193, 97 S.Ct. 990 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). 31 Most courts that have applied the Marks rule to J. 2013In its Marks opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that “[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. at 193, 97 S.Ct. 990 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). 31 Most courts that have applied the Marks rule to J. | 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.