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 1 courts 2002–2020 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. Levittgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Vineyard, 958 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Levitt, 73 S.W.3d 159, 173 (Tenn. Crim. 2012See, e.g., State v. Vineyard, 958 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Levitt, 73 S.W.3d 159, 173 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vineyardgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Vineyard, 958 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Levitt, 73 S.W.3d 159, 173 (Tenn. Crim. 2012See, e.g., State v. Vineyard, 958 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Levitt, 73 S.W.3d 159, 173 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Triston Lee Harrisgreen1 sentence2014State v. Harris, 280 S.W.3d 832, 840 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Deloitgreen1 sentence2002We first note that “[t]he state must establish compliance with Sensing by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. Deloit, 964 S.W.2d 909, 916 (Tenn.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State vs/ John Farris Hunter, IIIgreen1 sentence2002Our supreme court has found that “if credible proof establishes that the subject did not have foreign matter in the mouth, did not consume any alcoholic beverage, and did not smoke or regurgitate, then the rule is satisfied.” State v. Hunter, 941 S.W.2d 56, 57-58 (Tenn. 1997). -3- Prior to the court’s decision in Sensing, the testifying officer was required to be qualified through education, training, and experience to “interpret the test results in evidence” as a prerequisite to admissibility. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence2002The purpose of the observation requirement is, of course, to ensure “that no foreign matter is present in the defendant's mouth that could retain alcohol and potentially influence the results of the test.” State v. Cook, 9 S.W.3d 98, 100-01 (Tenn. 1999). | 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.