green
Positive treatment
4.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Rudolph Munn
See State v. S mith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 570 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960 , 115 S. Ct. 417 , 1 30 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State of Tennessee v. David Ivy
See State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 573 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960 , 115 S. Ct. 417 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Lashaun Nash
See State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 570 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960 , 115 S. Ct. 417 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Tennessee v. Ricky A. Burks
See State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 570 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960 , 115 S. Ct. 417 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mann
See State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 570 (Tenn.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960 , 115 S.Ct. 417 , 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994); State v. Nakdimen, 735 S.W.2d 799, 802 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). *529 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the appellant was not in custody during the initial “alibi statement.” “she initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.” Stansbury . 19 Specifically, the inquiry is �…
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. National Football League Players Ass'n
See Dashnaw v. Pena, 12 F.3d 1112 (D.C.Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 417 , 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994); Katradis v. Dave-El of Washington, D.C., 846 F.2d 1482 (D.C.Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. State
(2×)
See generally State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 582 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960 , 115 S.Ct. 417 , 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994); State v. Cauthern, 778 S.W.2d 39, 47 (Tenn.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 904 , 110 S.Ct. 1922 , 109 L.Ed.2d 286 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cooper
See State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 569-571 (Tenn.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 417 , 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994); Brown, 836 S.W.2d at 545-546 ; House, 743 S.W.2d at 147 ; Davis, 735 S.W.2d at 855 ; Stapleton, 638 S.W.2d at 859 ; Blackburn, slip op. at 3-4. . 868 S.W.2d at 570 . . 836 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn.1992). . 836 S.W.2d at 546 . .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gordon
Tennessee Law of ‘ Evidence, supra, § 803(2).2 at 534; see also State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 574 (Tenn.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960 , 115 S.Ct. 417 , 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994). 3 The declarant does not have to be a participant in the startling event or condition, and statements made in response to questions may still be admissible if the declarant *821 is under the excitement or stress of the event.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hsu Ex Rel. Chin-Ching Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free School District No. 3
Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 772-73 , 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2965-66 , 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973); see, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 18 F.3d 269 , 282 (4th Cm.) (applying Lemon test to university policy excluding religious activities from eligibility for student activities funds), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 417 , 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994); DeMarco v. Holy Cross High Sch, 4 F.3d 166, 168 (2d Cir.1993) (applying Lemon test to determine whether Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to action brought by lay teacher against his parochial school empl…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. City of Taylor, Mich.
(2×)
See e.g., City of Edmonds v. Washington State Building Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir.1994), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 417 , 130 L.Ed.2d 332 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Bruce HUBBARD
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 94-172.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 31, 1994.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted limited to the following question: Whether petitioner’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for knowingly making false statements in pleadings filed with the bankruptcy court are barred by the so-called “judicial functionn” exception of Section 1001.