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 1989–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Overton v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See id.; see also Overton, 874 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn. 1994) (“To establish actual prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’”), cf. State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 189 (Tenn. 2002) (articulating a traditional test for harmless constitutional error in omitting jury instruction on lesser included offense and indicating that the conviction will be reversed on direct appeal unless the reviewing court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not 2005See id.; see also Overton, 874 S.W.2d at 11 (“To establish actual prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’”), cf. State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 189 (Tenn. 2002) (articulating a traditional test for harmless constitutional error in omitting jury instruction on lesser included offense and indicating that the conviction will be reversed unless the reviewing court is reasonably sure that the error did not affect the verdict). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2010See id.; see also Overton, 874 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn. 1994) (“To establish actual prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’”), cf. State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 189 (Tenn. 2002) (articulating a traditional test for harmless constitutional error in omitting jury instruction on lesser included offense and indicating that the conviction will be reversed on direct appeal unless the reviewing court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not 2005See id.; see also Overton, 874 S.W.2d at 11 (“To establish actual prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’”), cf. State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 189 (Tenn. 2002) (articulating a traditional test for harmless constitutional error in omitting jury instruction on lesser included offense and indicating that the conviction will be reversed unless the reviewing court is reasonably sure that the error did not affect the verdict). | 2 | 2 |
Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee v. Thomas Ewing Cowangreen1 sentence2013Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Cowan, 388 S.W.3d 264, 267 (Tenn.2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacumingreen2 sentences2000Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 418 , 89 S. Ct. at 590 ; State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn. 1989). 2000Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 418 , 89 S.Ct. at 590 ; State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc.green1 sentence1989The material evidence rule in conjunction with our determination that issues involving required route and special hazard are primarily factual rather than legal, Jones v. Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tenn.1983), constrained us to let stand conflicting trial court rulings on factually similar cases. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. v. Shim
green
1 sentence2010We begin our analysis of the issue before this Court by reviewing the factors that a court should consider when deciding whether to allow an amendment, i.e., “[u]ndue delay in filing; lack of notice to the opposing party; bad faith by the moving party, repeated -3- failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Id. at 374 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Spinelli v. United States
red
2 sentences2000Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 418 , 89 S.Ct. at 590 ; State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.1989). 2000Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 418 , 89 S.Ct. at 590 ; State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.1989). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.