Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 225 Tenn. 472 - Dailey v. State

Dailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably Lipscomb v. Doe (2000), 810 F. Supp. 952 - Spence v. Miles Laboratories, Inc. (1992)

23 state decisions

1501971198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Dowlen v. Fitch · Brandon v. Warmath · 10 Smith & H. 600 - Bryant v. Mulder · Leiserson & Adler, Inc. v. Keam · Collins v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The United States Supreme Court, in opinions released prior to this 1970 amendment to T.C.A. § 27-111, held that any time a defendant was denied full appellate review due to ‘state action’ such was error requiring a new trial. The failure to timely file bills of exceptions in cases involving indigent defendants, denying such defendants a full appellate review, was deemed to be the result of ‘state action.’ This generally resulted in the indigent defendant so denied his full appellate review filing a post-conviction proceeding to have the judgment against him declared void and being successful the State was required to again put him to trial. This resulted in three separate proceedings when, in most cases, one should have been sufficient, which not only put the State to extra expense, but further clogged the already clogged appellate and trial court dockets. These were substantially the facts when the Legislature enacted this 1970 amendment, and it is obvious such was intended to remedy this situation. “A remedial statute should be liberally construed in furtherance of its purpose. [Citing cases.]””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Notwithstanding the foregoing time limitations, in criminal cases the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Supreme Court, upon application of the defendant or the state and for good cause shown, shall be empowered at any time to order the filing of the bill of exceptions or any portion thereof in the appropriate appellate court, so as to give the appellate court jurisdiction to consider the same. Upon the receipt of such an order from the appellate court, the trial judge shall see to it that the bill of exceptions or the relevant portion thereof is signed, filed in the trial court and promptly forwarded to the appropriate appellate court for filing therein.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The statute [T.C.A. Section 27-111] empowers the appellate courts, exercising their discretion, to order the filing of a late bill of exceptions for good cause shown on motion of the defendant or the State, and in the interest of justice by the court on its own motion.” [Emphasis supplied.] Id. at 610 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.