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.
8 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2018 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. Smileygreen2 sentences2018State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362, 373 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001)). 2017Fayne, 451 S.W.3d at 373 (citing State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Rushgreen2 sentences2018State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362, 373 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001)). 2017Fayne, 451 S.W.3d at 373 (citing State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001)). | 3 | 3 |
Mason v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences2015Co., 640 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982), our Court of Appeals specifically addressed the failure of a party to challenge the propriety of a jury instruction and concluded that Rule 3(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure barred consideration of the issue on appeal: [T]he reason therefor is to allow the trial court to rectify any errors that might have been made at trial and to avoid “appeal by ambush.” The rule is not new in this jurisdiction, having been the law prior to the adoption of the existing rules of appellate procedure. 2007Co., 640 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn.Ct.App.1982), our Court of Appeals specifically addressed the failure of a party to challenge the propriety of a jury instruction and concluded that Rule 3(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure barred consideration of the issue on appeal: [T]he reason therefor is to allow the trial court to rectify any errors that might have been made at trial and to avoid “appeal by ambush.” The rule is not new in this jurisdiction, having been the law prior to the adoption of the existing rules of appellate procedure. | 2 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Broderick Devonte Faynegreen2 sentences2018State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362, 373 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001)). 2017Fayne, 451 S.W.3d at 373 (citing State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001)). | 1 | 2 |
Carpenter v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 892 (Tenn. 2004). | 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. Premier Medical Group
green
2 sentences2016The case of White v. Premier Medical Group, 254 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) involved the propriety of a jury instruction in a medical malpractice case. 2008Discussion The recent case of White v. Premier Medical Group, 254 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn.Ct.App., 2007) 1 involved the propriety of a jury instruction in a medical malpractice case. | 2 | 2008–2016 |
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.