20 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Judge v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In Judge v. State, 539 S.W.2d 340 (Tenn.Crim.App.1976), this court articulated the factors to be considered in making that determination: *460 (1) The conduct complained of viewed in the context and in light of the facts and circumstances of the ease[;] (2) [t]he curative measures undertaken by the court and the prosecution!;] (8) [t]he intent of the prosecutor in making the improper statements!;] (4) [t]he cumulative effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record [; and] (5) [t]he relative strength or weakness of the case. 2006App. 1976), this court articulated the factors to be considered in making that determination: (1) The conduct complained of viewed in the context and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case[;] (2) [t]he curative measures undertaken by the court and the prosecution[;] (3) [t]he intent of the prosecutor in making the improper statements[;] (4) [t]he cumulative effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record[; and] (5) [t]he relative strength or weakness of the case. 539 S.W.2d at 344 . | 5 | 11 |
State v. Floodgreen1 sentence2015On appeal, this Court articulated the standard for determining whether the decision to exclude certain evidence violated a defendant‟s constitutional right to present a defense: Although “[p]rinciples of due process require that a defendant in a criminal trial have the right to present a defense and to offer testimony” favorable to his cause, State v. Flood, 219 S.W.3d 307, 316 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973); State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tenn. 2000)), that right is not without limits, see id. (citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302 ). | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2015On appeal, this Court articulated the standard for determining whether the decision to exclude certain evidence violated a defendant‟s constitutional right to present a defense: Although “[p]rinciples of due process require that a defendant in a criminal trial have the right to present a defense and to offer testimony” favorable to his cause, State v. Flood, 219 S.W.3d 307, 316 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973); State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tenn. 2000)), that right is not without limits, see id. (citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302 ). 2015On appeal, this Court articulated the standard for determining whether the decision to exclude certain evidence violated a defendant‟s constitutional right to present a defense: Although “[p]rinciples of due process require that a defendant in a criminal trial have the right to present a defense and to offer testimony” favorable to his cause, State v. Flood, 219 S.W.3d 307, 316 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973); State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tenn. 2000)), that right is not without limits, see id. (citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2015On appeal, this Court articulated the standard for determining whether the decision to exclude certain evidence violated a defendant‟s constitutional right to present a defense: Although “[p]rinciples of due process require that a defendant in a criminal trial have the right to present a defense and to offer testimony” favorable to his cause, State v. Flood, 219 S.W.3d 307, 316 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973); State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tenn. 2000)), that right is not without limits, see id. (citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302 ). 2015On appeal, this Court articulated the standard for determining whether the decision to exclude certain evidence violated a defendant‟s constitutional right to present a defense: Although “[p]rinciples of due process require that a defendant in a criminal trial have the right to present a defense and to offer testimony” favorable to his cause, State v. Flood, 219 S.W.3d 307, 316 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973); State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tenn. 2000)), that right is not without limits, see id. (citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. White
green
2 sentences2015The court articulated an instruction on “substantial interference” to “ensure that juries return kidnapping convictions only in those instances in which the victim’s removal or confinement exceeds that which is necessary to accomplish the accompanying felony.” Id. at 578 . 2014The court articulated an instruction on “substantial interference” to “ensure that juries return kidapping convictions only in those instances in which the victim’s removal or confinement exceeds that which is necessary to accomplish the accompanying felony.” Id. at 578 . | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Halloran v. Kostka
green
1 sentence2020Id. 8 We first address Mother’s argument that the court “misstated … the factors applicable to a request for a name change.” In the Final Order, the court articulated the factors to be applied in its consideration of the name change thusly: According to Tennessee law, it is the burden of the petitioner (or the person requesting the change) to establish that a name change of the child would be in the child’s best interest. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Carey v. Musladin
green
2 sentences2015The Court observed that “although the Court articulated the test for inherent prejudice that applies to state conduct in Williams and Flynn,” it had “never applied that test to spectators’ conduct.” Id. 2015The court noted that “part of the legal test of Williams and Flynn--asking whether the practices furthered an essential state interest--suggests that those cases apply only to state-sponsored practices.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Wilkerson
green
1 sentence2014He contends that although the court articulated the factors in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995), it failed to determine whether the proof established those factors in his case. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
SNPCO, INC. v. City of Jefferson City
green
1 sentence2014In SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. 2012), the Supreme Court employed the “substantial effects” test to resolve an issue of whether an ordinance which banned the sale of fireworks in the city limits was a zoning ordinance, thereby invoking the protections of Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 (b)(1) to permit a retailer whose property had been annexed into the city to continue to sell fireworks, or a regulation enacted by the City pursuant to its general police powers granted to it at Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-2 - 201(22).7 The court articulated the test as follows: 6 The statuto | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Kissinger
green
1 sentence2011In State v. Kissinger, 922 S.W.2d 482 (Tenn. 1996), the court articulated the standard for determining the existence of a position of trust solely in terms of the defendant and victim. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
1 sentence2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.
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.