18 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2015 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. Odomgreen2 sentences2014The State further contends that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a trier-of-fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant “intentionally fled from or attempted to elude Officer Bowman’s stop.” A. Motion to Suppress Our standard of review for a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion to suppress evidence is set forth in State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996). 2012Motion to Suppress The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress -8- because his “unequivocal assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege was not ‘scrupulously honored.’” When this court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, “[q]uestions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact.” State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). | 12 | 17 |
State v. Keithgreen2 sentences2012The party prevailing at the suppression hearing is afforded the “strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.” State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998). 2007The party prevailing at the suppression hearing is afforded the “strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.” State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn.1998). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2004This standard mandates that “a trial court’s findings of fact in a suppression hearing will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” Id. at 23 ; see State v. Randolph, 74 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tenn.2002). 2004This standard mandates that “a trial court’s findings of fact in a suppression hearing will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” Id. at 23 ; see State v. Randolph, 74 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tenn. 2002). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Crutchergreen2 sentences2003We note that “a trial court’s findings of fact in a suppression hearing will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295, 299 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn.1996)). 2001We note that "a trial court's findings of fact in a suppression hearing will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise." State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295, 299 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn.1996)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences2012The defendant does not clearly articulate, however, what evidence he would like suppressed, asking only that this court “adhere to the finding in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S. Ct. 314 , 58 L. 2012The defendant does not clearly articulate, however, what evidence he would like suppressed, asking only that this court “adhere to the finding in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S. Ct. 314 , 58 L. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.