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.
15 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Riverside v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences2013Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 125 (1975); State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 671 (Tenn. 1996). “[J]udicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement. . . .” County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991). 2012The Court ruled “that a jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement of Gerstein.” Id. at 56 . | 6 | 13 |
State v. Huddlestongreen2 sentences2013Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 125 (1975); State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 671 (Tenn. 1996). “[J]udicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement. . . .” County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991). 2002See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 , 111 S. Ct. 1661, 1670 (1991) (“judicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement of Gerstein”); State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666 , 671- 72 (Tenn. 1996) (a hearing within forty-eight hours may still violate Gerstein if the probable cause hearing was delayed unreasonably). | 1 | 2 |
Mello v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2025As one court has observed in a closely related context, “[a] bail revocation hearing must be conducted with the same promptness as a hearing in the first instance, allowing, of course, for variations according to circumstances[.]” Mello v. Superior Court, 370 A.2d 1262, 1266 (R.I. 1977) (also observing that “a 2-week delay, absent a defendant’s consent, is not [to] be countenanced”). | 1 | 1 |
Gerstein v. Pughgreen1 sentence2013Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 125 (1975); State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 671 (Tenn. 1996). “[J]udicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement. . . .” County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lance v. York
green
1 sentence2017Moreover, the fact that Metro cited Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503 (a)(2)(B) on Form 720 as authority for its assertion that it had seven business days to process requests for copies shows that Metro assumed the promptness requirement also applied to copies when it created Form 720.4 We believe this construction of the Act complies with its overall purpose of 4 We acknowledge Metro’s reliance on the case Lance v. York, 359 S.W.3d 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011), - 16 - ‘“promot[ing] public oversight of governmental activities.”’ Friedmann, 471 S.W.3d at 433 (quoting Gautreaux v. Internal Med. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Alex Friedmann v. Marshall County, TN
green
1 sentence2017Moreover, the fact that Metro cited Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503 (a)(2)(B) on Form 720 as authority for its assertion that it had seven business days to process requests for copies shows that Metro assumed the promptness requirement also applied to copies when it created Form 720.4 We believe this construction of the Act complies with its overall purpose of 4 We acknowledge Metro’s reliance on the case Lance v. York, 359 S.W.3d 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011), - 16 - ‘“promot[ing] public oversight of governmental activities.”’ Friedmann, 471 S.W.3d at 433 (quoting Gautreaux v. Internal Med. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.