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 1985–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chavez v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2026See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 , 768 n.2 (2003) (plurality opinion) (describing the Garrity rule as “a prophylactic rule we have constructed to protect the Fifth Amendment’s right from invasion”). | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. Shatzergreen1 sentence2012See Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213, 1220 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
McNeil v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2009In response, the State asserted that it relied on McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 177-79 , 111 S. Ct. 2204, 2208-09 (1991), which held that when a defendant invokes the offense-specific Sixth Amendment right to counsel during a proceeding as to a charged offense, it is not also considered an invocation of the defendant’s non-offense-specific Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda and Edwards as to other uncharged offenses. 2009In response, the State asserted that it relied on McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 177-79 , 111 S. Ct. 2204, 2208-09 (1991), which held that when a defendant invokes the offense-specific Sixth Amendment right to counsel during a proceeding as to a charged offense, it is not also considered an invocation of the defendant’s non-offense-specific Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda and Edwards as to other uncharged offenses. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garrity v. New Jersey
green
1 sentence2026A different rule was articulated the following year in Garrity -9- v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
George v. Alexander
green
2 sentences2012In George , the Supreme Court clearly established that “Rule 8.03 is a prophylactic rule of procedure that must *413 be strictly adhered to if it is to achieve its purposes.” George, 931 S.W.2d at 522 . 2012As such, to allow Dr. Kriger to proceed with his defense without pleading the comparative fault of Mr. Dickson “would invite evasion of a clearly-stated rule of procedure that is crucial to the equitable and efficient administration of a comparative fault system.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
2 sentences1985Id. 104 S.Ct. at 3150 . 1985Id. 104 S.Ct. at 3150 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.