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.
5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 1 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. Bartramgreen2 sentences2024See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim. 2005See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2043-44 (1973); State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences2024See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim. 2005See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2043-44 (1973); State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2024See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim. 2005See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2043-44 (1973); State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Ullom v. Millergreen2 sentences2013However, Virginia recognizes a ‘community caretaker’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” (internal citations omitted)); State v. Kinzy, 5 P.3d 668, 676 (Wash. 2000) (“The community caretaking function exception recognizes that a person may encounter police officers in situations involving not only emergency aid, but also involving a routine check on health and safety.”); Ullom v. Miller, 705 S.E.2d 111, 120 (W.Va. 2010) (“The ‘community caretaker’ doctrine is a widely recognized exception to the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Consti 2013However, Virginia recognizes a ‘community caretaker’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” (internal citations omitted)); State v. Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d 873 , 5 P.3d 668 , 676 (2000) (“The community caretaking function exception recognizes that a person may encounter police officers in situations involving not only emergency aid, but also involving a routine check on health and safety.”); Ullom v. Miller, 227 W.Va. 1 , 705 S.E.2d 111, 120 (2010) (“The ‘community caretaker’ doctrine is a widely recognized exception to the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kramergreen2 sentences2013However, Virginia recognizes a ‘community caretaker’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” (internal citations omitted)); State v. Kinzy, 5 P.3d 668, 676 (Wash. 2000) (“The community caretaking function exception recognizes that a person may encounter police officers in situations involving not only emergency aid, but also involving a routine check on health and safety.”); Ullom v. Miller, 705 S.E.2d 111, 120 (W.Va. 2010) (“The ‘community caretaker’ doctrine is a widely recognized exception to the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Consti 2013However, Virginia recognizes a ‘community caretaker’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” (internal citations omitted)); State v. Kinzy, 5 P.3d 668, 676 (Wash. 2000) (“The community caretaking function exception recognizes that a person may encounter police officers in situations involving not only emergency aid, but also involving a routine check on health and safety.”); Ullom v. Miller, 705 S.E.2d 111, 120 (W.Va. 2010) (“The ‘community caretaker’ doctrine is a widely recognized exception to the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Consti | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Kentucky Bar Ass'ngreen1 sentence2010See Cauley, 836 S.W.2d at 417 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. McClanahangreen1 sentence1998State v. McClanahan, 806 S.W. 2d 219, 220 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.