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 2000–2018 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. Cartergreen1 sentence2018As the United States Supreme Court reasoned in Baker, 8 The Defendant does not include a separate Rule 5 violation argument in his appellate brief, although Rule 5 was addressed by the trial court. -17- Since an adversary hearing is not required, and since the probable-cause standard for pretrial detention is the same as that for arrest, a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate on a showing of probable cause is not constitutionally entitled to a separate judicial determination that there is probable cause to detain him pending trial. 443 U.S. at 143 ; see also Carter, 16 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kochgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Koch, 499 N.W.2d 152, 159-60 (Wis. 1993) (concluding that “[t]he arrested person has no right to a physical appearance before a judicial officer for the probable cause determination”). | 1 | 1 |
Hood v. Carstengreen2 sentences2015P. 4.42(5) (providing that "the defendant ... shall be granted an adversary' hearing comporting with the requirements of due process”); Hood v. Carsten, 267 Ga. 579 , 481 S.E.2d 525, 529 (1997) (finding that before revoking bond, a trial court must provide a defendant "a meaningful opportunity to be heard”); State v. Maccioli, 110 N.J.Super. 352 , 265 A.2d 561, 562 (Law Div.1970) (finding that the State must produce witnesses at a bond revocation hearing so that the defense has- the opportunity to. cross-examine and confront them); State v. David, 102 N.M. 138 , 692 P.2d 524, 530 (N.M. 2015P. 4.42(5) (providing that "the defendant ... shall be granted an adversary' hearing comporting with the requirements of due process”); Hood v. Carsten, 267 Ga. 579 , 481 S.E.2d 525, 529 (1997) (finding that before revoking bond, a trial court must provide a defendant "a meaningful opportunity to be heard”); State v. Maccioli, 110 N.J.Super. 352 , 265 A.2d 561, 562 (Law Div.1970) (finding that the State must produce witnesses at a bond revocation hearing so that the defense has- the opportunity to. cross-examine and confront them); State v. David, 102 N.M. 138 , 692 P.2d 524, 530 (N.M. | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacCioligreen2 sentences2015P. 4.42(5) (providing that "the defendant ... shall be granted an adversary' hearing comporting with the requirements of due process”); Hood v. Carsten, 267 Ga. 579 , 481 S.E.2d 525, 529 (1997) (finding that before revoking bond, a trial court must provide a defendant "a meaningful opportunity to be heard”); State v. Maccioli, 110 N.J.Super. 352 , 265 A.2d 561, 562 (Law Div.1970) (finding that the State must produce witnesses at a bond revocation hearing so that the defense has- the opportunity to. cross-examine and confront them); State v. David, 102 N.M. 138 , 692 P.2d 524, 530 (N.M. 2015P. 4.42(5) (providing that "the defendant ... shall be granted an adversary' hearing comporting with the requirements of due process”); Hood v. Carsten, 267 Ga. 579 , 481 S.E.2d 525, 529 (1997) (finding that before revoking bond, a trial court must provide a defendant "a meaningful opportunity to be heard”); State v. Maccioli, 110 N.J.Super. 352 , 265 A.2d 561, 562 (Law Div.1970) (finding that the State must produce witnesses at a bond revocation hearing so that the defense has- the opportunity to. cross-examine and confront them); State v. David, 102 N.M. 138 , 692 P.2d 524, 530 (N.M. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davidgreen2 sentences2015P. 4.42(5) (providing that "the defendant ... shall be granted an adversary' hearing comporting with the requirements of due process”); Hood v. Carsten, 267 Ga. 579 , 481 S.E.2d 525, 529 (1997) (finding that before revoking bond, a trial court must provide a defendant "a meaningful opportunity to be heard”); State v. Maccioli, 110 N.J.Super. 352 , 265 A.2d 561, 562 (Law Div.1970) (finding that the State must produce witnesses at a bond revocation hearing so that the defense has- the opportunity to. cross-examine and confront them); State v. David, 102 N.M. 138 , 692 P.2d 524, 530 (N.M. 2015P. 4.42(5) (providing that "the defendant ... shall be granted an adversary' hearing comporting with the requirements of due process”); Hood v. Carsten, 267 Ga. 579 , 481 S.E.2d 525, 529 (1997) (finding that before revoking bond, a trial court must provide a defendant "a meaningful opportunity to be heard”); State v. Maccioli, 110 N.J.Super. 352 , 265 A.2d 561, 562 (Law Div.1970) (finding that the State must produce witnesses at a bond revocation hearing so that the defense has- the opportunity to. cross-examine and confront them); State v. David, 102 N.M. 138 , 692 P.2d 524, 530 (N.M. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. McCollan
green
2 sentences2018As the United States Supreme Court reasoned in Baker, 8 The Defendant does not include a separate Rule 5 violation argument in his appellate brief, although Rule 5 was addressed by the trial court. -17- Since an adversary hearing is not required, and since the probable-cause standard for pretrial detention is the same as that for arrest, a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate on a showing of probable cause is not constitutionally entitled to a separate judicial determination that there is probable cause to detain him pending trial. 443 U.S. at 143 ; see also Carter, 16 2000As the United States Supreme Court reasoned in Baker : [sjince an adversary hearing is not required, and since the probable-cause standard for pretrial detention is the same as that for arrest, a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate on a showing of probable cause is not constitutionally entitled to a separate judicial determination that there is probable cause to detain him pending trial. 443 U.S. at 143 , 99 S.Ct. at 2694 , 61 L.Ed.2d. at 441. 4 In this case, arrest warrants were issued approximately 24 hours after Carter had been taken into custody. | 2 | 2000–2018 |
Gerstein v. Pugh
green
2 sentences2018App. at Jackson, May 4, 2016) (quoting Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 420 ), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Sept. 26, 2016). 2016The Court noted that the only issue to determine is whether “there is probable cause for detaining the arrested person pending further proceedings,” which “can be determined reliably without an adversary hearing.” Id. | 2 | 2016–2018 |
Marshall v. Casey
green
1 sentence2015Ct. App. 1984) (finding that an accused has the right to the due process requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard and the right to counsel); Marshall v. Casey, 174 W.Va. 204 , 324 S.E.2d *310 346, 351 (1984) (finding that bail revocation hearings should be governed by West Virginia Rule of Criminal Procedure 46, which provides that “[b]oth the attorney for the state and the defendant may offer evidence in their behalf”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.