State v. Smith

4 Citing cases

  1. Abdur'Rahman v. State

    648 S.W.3d 178 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020)   Cited 10 times

    " ‘It is fundamental that jurisdiction, neither original nor appellate, can be conferred by consent and neither waiver nor estoppel could be more effective than the consent of parties.’ " State v. Smith , 278 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting James v. Kennedy , 174 Tenn. 591, 129 S.W.2d 215, 216 (1939) ). Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, and our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness.

  2. Scarlett v. AA Props. GP

    616 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    This argument is without merit, as Rule 6.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply in General Sessions Court. SeeState v. Smith , 278 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 2008) (holding that the relevant statute for the computation of time in General Sessions Court is Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-102, which provides that "[t]he time within which any act provided by law to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, then it shall also be excluded.").The Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

  3. Anderson v. State

    692 S.W.3d 94 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    " ‘It is fundamental that jurisdiction, neither original nor appellate, can be conferred by consent and neither waiver nor estoppel could be more effective than the consent of parties.’ " State v. Smith, 278 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting James v. Kennedy, 174 Tenn. 591, 129 S.W.2d 215, 216 (1939)). Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, and our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness.

  4. Collins v. Sams E. Inc.

    No. W2017-00711-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    There can be no dispute that Appellant's motion to set aside the judgment in the First Case was timely and therefore pursuant to the plain language of section 16-15-727(b), the time for perfecting an appeal was tolled. See generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-102 (governing computation of time); State v. Smith, 278 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (applying section 1-3-102 to general sessions court). The trial court concluded, however, that the First Case was "final" and that the section 16-15-727(b) motion "did not affect the finality of the judgment nor did it suspend its operation[.