5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2012 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. Bondurantgreen1 sentence2002In State v. Bondurant, 4 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tenn. 1999), our supreme court stated that the test in determining whether jury separation occurred is “whether a juror passes from the attendance and control of the court officer.” In this case, the trial court specifically instructed the jurors and the court officers that any telephone calls would occur in the officer’s presence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Monroegreen1 sentence2000See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Texas
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Id. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2012The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant entered his guilty plea but reserved for appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(iv), the following certified question of law: Whether or not the Court properly found there was probable cause to initiate a stop of the vehicle being driven by the defendant based upon the testimony of the officer at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress in this cause, or whether the officer lacked probable cause to stop the subject vehicle based upon the holding in State v. Garcia, 123 S.W.3d 335 [(Tenn. 2003)]. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.