Legal Opinion
House v. State
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided September 25, 1995PublishedCited by 229 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Chief Justice.
The issues raised by the State in this appeal require an interpretation of the procedural default provisions of the Tennessee Post-Conviction Procedure Act. 1 Under the Act, “[a] ground for relief is ‘previously determined’ if a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the merits after a full and fair hearing.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-112(a) (1990). The State’s appeal requires that we determine whether “a full and fair hearing” occurs when a petitioner, though given the opportunity, fails to present proof on a ground for relief in a prior post-conviction…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Townsend v. SainSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by229 opinions
- House v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Momon v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
- Robert Glen Coe, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- Grindstaff v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2009
- Williams v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2001
224 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.