- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Stout v. State
No. W2000-01743-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 7, 2002) Stout v. State
1 Citing case
Stout v. State
No. M2009-01171-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2010) Cited 2 timesConcluding that "the trial court properly determined that the [p]etitioner's claim concerning the [selection of] the grand jury foreperson is not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding"
Subsequently, Bush examined a photographic line-up containing a picture of the petitioner and identified the [P]etitioner as his assailant.James P. Stout v. State, No. W2000-01743-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 1482671, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 7, 2002), (footnotes omitted), no Tenn. R. App. P. application filed. The Petitioner filed his first petition for habeas corpus relief pro se on January 14, 2008.