Case Citator › State v. Mixon

State v. Mixon

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
983 S.W.2d 661
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Treatment dates
2012
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. State v. Mixon's account of the writ's history was criticized; its filing rules remain in use. All 38 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Tennessee Supreme Court later found that the common-law writ of error coram nobis was available in Tennessee criminal cases before the 1955 statute, contrary to Mixon's historical observation. That criticism is listed below. Later Tennessee courts continue to apply Mixon's rules for the one-year filing period and for petitions filed during a direct appeal.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

38 citations to State v. Mixon sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Mixon?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected Mixon's historical observation that coram nobis was unavailable in criminal cases before 1955.

    Stephen Bernard Wlodarz v. State of Tennessee · Tennessee Supreme Court · filed

    Recently, in Mixon, this Court, relying on language appearing in Green v. State, 187 Tenn. 545, 216 S.W.2d 305, 306-07 (1948), observed that the common-law writ of error coram.nobis had been “limited in scope to civil proceedings” until adopted by statute in 1955. 983 S.W.2d at 668; see also State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 524 (Tenn.2007). While our extensive research indicates that in this state writs of error coram nobis were used primarily in civil cases — similar to the use of the writ in other states — it appears that the writ, although rarely sought, was also available in criminal actions in Tennessee.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Mixon and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace