purpose of conducting test (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

purpose of conducting test in Tennessee

5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2017 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Powers v. State green
tenn · 2011
2 sentences

2015Powers, 343 S.W.3d at 55 n.28; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30 - 305(1).

2012For the purpose of conducting its analysis of a petitioner’s claim, a post-conviction court must presume that DNA analysis would produce favorable results to the petitioner. -5- Powers, 343 S.W.3d at 55 n.28; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (1) (2003).

32012–2015
Ingram v. Phillips green
tennctapp · 1984
1 sentence

2017In Ingram v. Phillips, 684 S.W.2d 954 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984), this Court held that when the case is tried without a jury, the admission of inadmissible evidence will be insufficient to require reversal of the judgment where 2 Appellant argues that such evidence was required for the hearsay toxicology report to be admitted pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-408(a), which provides: The procurement of a sample of a person's blood for the purpose of conducting a test to determine the alcohol content, drug content, or both, of the blood shall be considered valid if the sample was col

12017–2017
Crawford v. Washington green
scotus · 2004
2 sentences

2007As such, Petitioner’s reliance on Henderson is misplaced. -16- At present, defendants’ rights under the confrontation clause are governed by the United States Supreme Court decision Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L.

2007As such, Petitioner’s reliance on Henderson is misplaced. -16- At present, defendants’ rights under the confrontation clause are governed by the United States Supreme Court decision Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L.

12007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-303 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-304 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-305 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 12 (1966–2026) NY 8 (1979–2025) TN 5 (2007–2017) MO 4 (1995–2019) MS 4 (1985–2002) FL 3 (1987–2010) ID 2 (1989–2023) IN 2 (1981–2013) TX 2 (1993–1997) NJ 2 (1978–1999) CA 2 (1962–1994) LA 2 (1997–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check