5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2014 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. Strodegreen2 sentences2014See also State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d at 5 (the State presented evidence challenging the score on the basis that the defendant had been malingering); Smith v. State, 2010 WL 3638033 , at *30 (the State presented evidence that the defendant’s I.Q. test score should be discounted because of malingering); Van Tran v. State, 2006 WL 3327828 , at 4-6 (the State argued that the Vietnamese-born defendant’s low I.Q. test score reflected cultural and linguistic bias). 2014See also State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d at 5 (the State presented evidence challenging the score on the basis that the defendant had been malingering); Smith v. State, -20- 2010 WL 3638033 , at *30 (the State presented evidence that the defendant’s I.Q. test score should be discounted because of malingering); Van Tran v. State, 2006 WL 3327828 , at 4-6 (the State argued that the Vietnamese-born defendant’s low I.Q. test score reflected cultural and linguistic bias). | 5 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.