5 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2016 0 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. Adkissongreen1 sentence2013See Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., 29A Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1303 (1995); State v. Robinson, 272 Neb. 582 , 724 N.W.2d 35, 65-67 (2006); J.L. v. State, 789 N.E.2d 961, 965 (Ind.App.2003). 2007See, e.g., 29A Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1303 (1995); State v. Robinson, 272 Neb. 582 , 724 N.W.2d 35, 65-67 (2006); J.L. v. State, 789 N.E.2d 961, 965 (Ind.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
JL v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., 29A Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1303 (1995); State v. Robinson, 272 Neb. 582 , 724 N.W.2d 35, 65-67 (2006); J.L. v. State, 789 N.E.2d 961, 965 (Ind.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Blackburn v. Murphygreen1 sentence1989According to Rule 36(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, a judgment “shall not be set aside unless, considering the whole record, error involving a substantial right more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process.” Blackburn v. Murphy, 737 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Tenn.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arias v. DURO STANDARD PRODUCTS CO.
green
1 sentence2016In Arias, our supreme court concluded that a doctor‟s report was generated for the purpose of litigation and, therefore, inadmissible hearsay because the doctor “was not a treating physician, and his opinion was sought solely for the purpose of establishing causation [in a worker‟s compensation litigation].” Arias, 303 S.W.3d at 263 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Edward Thomas Kendrick, III v. State of Tennessee
green
1 sentence2015Recently, in Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015), the supreme court explained the standard of review to be utilized when addressing the admissibility of hearsay evidence: The standard of review for rulings on hearsay evidence has multiple layers. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.