sanction violation (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

sanction violation in Tennessee

5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Blackgreen
tenncrimapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2009–2014
2 sentences

2014The trial court may, as a sanction, exclude the testimony of a witness who hears other testimony while subject to a sequestration order.” State v. Black, 75 S.W.3d 422, 424 (Tenn. Crim.

2009Instead, courts retain the discretion to impose a variety of sanctions appropriate to the circumstances.” State v. Black, 75 S.W.3d 422, 424 (Tenn. Crim.

22
Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibilitygreen
tenn · 2010 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019Id. (citing Garland v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 536 S.W.3d 811 , 816 (Tenn. 2017); Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tenn. 2010)).

11
State v. Anthonygreen
tenncrimapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000Although the rule does not provide for a sanction for its violation, prior to passage of the rule,“[t]rial judges had always been afforded wide discretion in determining whether to impose the sanction of excluding the evidence of a witness suspected of having violated the rule.” State v. Anthony, 836 S.W.2d 600, 605 (Tenn. Crim.

11

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Board of Professional Responsibility of The Supreme Court of Tennessee v. Loring Edwin Justice green
· 2019
1 sentence

2024“Attorneys charged with disciplinary violations have a right to an evidentiary hearing before a hearing panel, which determines whether a violation has occurred and, if so, the appropriate sanction for the violation.” Justice, 577 S.W.3d at 923 .

12024–2024
Parrish v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility neutral
scotus · 2019
1 sentence

2019Id. (citing Garland v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 536 S.W.3d 811 , 816 (Tenn. 2017); Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tenn. 2010)).

12019–2019

Where else courts name it

OH 105 (1988–2026) MD 86 (1978–2025) IL 70 (1893–2026) NY 48 (1884–2026) FL 40 (1982–2025) TX 38 (1932–2024) AZ 35 (1954–2025) IA 32 (1919–2022) WA 31 (1914–2024) CA 29 (1986–2026) NJ 25 (1988–2025) NH 22 (1998–2025) UT 20 (2001–2026) IN 20 (1981–2020) OR 18 (1981–2026) CT 16 (1874–2024) CO 15 (1986–2025) MI 15 (1982–2023) MO 14 (1982–2012) PA 12 (1977–2024) WI 12 (1993–2020) NC 9 (1980–2015) MN 8 (1986–2013) ND 8 (1999–2003) AK 7 (1985–2025) KY 7 (2009–2025) KS 7 (1999–2022) LA 6 (1988–2017) MA 6 (1987–2025) RI 6 (1983–2016) NM 6 (1998–2018) HI 5 (1978–2021) DC 5 (1989–2016) NE 5 (1991–2021) TN 5 (2000–2024) NV 4 (1976–2022) ME 4 (1979–2002) WY 4 (2013–2026) GA 3 (1991–2012) AR 3 (1991–2023) VA 3 (1905–2013) MS 3 (1874–2018) DE 3 (1972–2011) WV 2 (1983–1991)

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