Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Odomgreen2 sentences2015The prevailing party on the motion to suppress is afforded the “‘strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)); see State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23 . -15- At the motion to suppress hearing, Officers Hollingsworth and Frazier and Detective Lindsey testified consistently with their trial testimony. 2015The prevailing party on the motion to suppress is afforded the “‘strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)); see State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23 . -15- At the motion to suppress hearing, Officers Hollingsworth and Frazier and Detective Lindsey testified consistently with their trial testimony. | 16 | 21 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2012State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jones, 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn. Crim. 2012State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jones, 802 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tenn. Crim. | 16 | 16 |
State v. Tategreen2 sentences2016See State v. Tate, 615 S.W.2d 161, 162 (Tenn. Crim. 2011See State v. Tate, 615 S.W.2d 161, 162 (Tenn. Crim. | 8 | 8 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences2019State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Tenn. 2001). 2018State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Tenn. 2001). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Danielgreen2 sentences2015The prevailing party on the motion to suppress is afforded the “‘strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)); see State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23 . -15- At the motion to suppress hearing, Officers Hollingsworth and Frazier and Detective Lindsey testified consistently with their trial testimony. 2015The prevailing party on the motion to suppress is afforded the “‘strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)); see State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23 . -15- At the motion to suppress hearing, Officers Hollingsworth and Frazier and Detective Lindsey testified consistently with their trial testimony. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Keithgreen2 sentences2015The prevailing party on the motion to suppress is afforded the “‘strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)); see State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23 . -15- At the motion to suppress hearing, Officers Hollingsworth and Frazier and Detective Lindsey testified consistently with their trial testimony. 2015The prevailing party on the motion to suppress is afforded the “‘strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)); see State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23 . -15- At the motion to suppress hearing, Officers Hollingsworth and Frazier and Detective Lindsey testified consistently with their trial testimony. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ballardgreen1 sentence2025See Ballard, 855 S.W.2d at 560 ; see also Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lawsongreen1 sentence2022See State v. Lawson, 291 S.W.3d 864, 869 (Tenn. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smothermangreen1 sentence2012See State v. Smotherman, 201 S.W.3d 657, 660-61 (Tenn. 2006); see also State v. Siliski, 238 S.W.3d 338, 365 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Siliskigreen1 sentence2012See State v. Smotherman, 201 S.W.3d 657, 660-61 (Tenn. 2006); see also State v. Siliski, 238 S.W.3d 338, 365 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Younggreen1 sentence2012A. Standard of Review In reviewing the trial court’s determination on a defendant’s motion to suppress hearing, “the findings of fact made by the trial court . . . are binding upon this court” unless the defendant establishes that “the evidence contained in the record preponderates otherwise.” State v. Young, 196 S.W.3d 85, 127 (Tenn. 2006) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2007See State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 551 (Tenn. 2000); see also State v. Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 606 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carruthersgreen1 sentence2007See State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 551 (Tenn. 2000); see also State v. Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 606 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Tennessee v. Marco M. Northern
green
2 sentences2015The prevailing party on the motion to suppress is afforded the “‘strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)); see State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23 . -15- At the motion to suppress hearing, Officers Hollingsworth and Frazier and Detective Lindsey testified consistently with their trial testimony. 2015The prevailing party on the motion to suppress is afforded the “‘strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)); see State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn. 2000); Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 23 . -15- At the motion to suppress hearing, Officers Hollingsworth and Frazier and Detective Lindsey testified consistently with their trial testimony. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State of Tennessee v. Christine Caudle
green
1 sentence2013In light of Caudle, we conclude that the record, which contains transcripts of the motion to suppress hearing and the sentencing hearing, exhibits from each hearing, and the presentence report, is sufficient to determine whether the trial court recited a proper basis for the sentence. 388 S.W.3d 273 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010In a second amended petition, the Petitioner elaborated on his previous allegations and, additionally, alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue in a motion to suppress hearing that the Petitioner was subjected to a custodial interrogation prior to being advised of his Miranda rights.1 At the outset of his post- conviction hearing, the Petitioner added two additional ineffective assistance claims—that 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). -4- trial counsel failed to introduce evidence about the victim’s violent reputation 2 and that trial counsel failed to adequa 2010In a second amended petition, the Petitioner elaborated on his previous allegations and, additionally, alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue in a motion to suppress hearing that the Petitioner was subjected to a custodial interrogation prior to being advised of his Miranda rights.1 At the outset of his post- conviction hearing, the Petitioner added two additional ineffective assistance claims—that 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). -4- trial counsel failed to introduce evidence about the victim’s violent reputation 2 and that trial counsel failed to adequa | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2009After hearing testimony at the motion to suppress hearing, the Obion County Circuit Court, relying upon Johnson v. State, 601 S.W.2d 326 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Bragan
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Eddie Upshaw
green
1 sentence1978The judicial system cannot be a party to the use of tainted evidence on the basis that, arguably, the defendant was not entitled to bring to the attention of the court what the court has come to know anyhow.” 448 F.2d at 1222 We agree and accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 1 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.