Case Citator › State v. Neal

State v. Neal

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
810 S.W.2d 131
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1993
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Neal was overruled in part by Blankenship v. State. Neal's statement that a person challenging a guilty plea must prove that the plea would not have been entered but for omitted advice is no longer good law except where the challenge rests on ineffective assistance of counsel.
More on how this was screened

Neal's central substantial-compliance and harmless-error rules remain in use. All 33 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below. The later citing opinions repeatedly report Blankenship's act in citation histories. The entry quotes Blankenship itself, the Tennessee Supreme Court opinion that changed Neal's rule.

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.

33 later cases cite State v. Neal; 33 of those citations 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. Neal?

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

Overruled in part

  • The court rejected Neal's added “but for” burden for guilty-plea challenges outside ineffective assistance of counsel.

    Blankenship v. State · Tennessee Supreme Court · filed

    Indeed, it appears from the reliance in Neal on the United States Supreme Court opinions in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), that the “but for” rule is properly applied only in those cases in which the alleged invalidity of a prior guilty plea is attributable to ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent that the language of Neal appears to hold otherwise, it cannot be considered good law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Neal 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