Tennessee Supreme Court· 2/5/2003

State v. Armstrong

Citations

126 S.W.3d 908
2003 Tenn. LEXIS 68

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that the supreme court has never applied a “substantial compliance” standard to the Preston requirements but instead repeatedly held that the requirements under Rule 37 are “explicit and unambiguous”
first quoting State v. Irwin, 962 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tenn. 1998); and then quoting State v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn. 1996)
appellate court should look at the “the substance of the trial court’s curative action” to determine whether an order filed after the judgment amended the judgment
rejecting “substantial compliance” with the Preston requirements
rejecting “substantial compliance” with the Preston requirements
rejecting “substantial compliance” with the Preston requirements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: E. Riley Anderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

120 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named State v. Armstrong

260 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.