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.
11 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2017 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. Murphygreen2 sentences2016The horizontal gaze nystagmus test “tracks the [horizontal] movements of the eyes in order to gauge whether an individual might be under the influence of an intoxicant.” State v. Bell, 429 S.W.3d 524 , 527 n.5 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Murphy, 953 S.W.2d 200, 201-02 (Tenn. 1997)). 1998The state concedes the testimony was improperly admitted under the standards of State v. Murphy, 953 S.W.2d 200 (Tenn. 1997). 1 Murphy held that testimony concerning the horizontal gaze nystagmus test 1 The arresting officer had extensive training and experience in DUI detection and field sobriety testing. | 7 | 10 |
State v. Gilbertgreen2 sentences2004See State v. Murphy, 953 S.W. 2d 200, 202-03 (Tenn. 1997): State v. Gilbert, 751 S.W.2d 454, 459 (Tenn. Crim. 2000See State v. Murphy, 953 S.W.2d 200, 202-03 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Gilbert, 751 S.W.2d 454, 459 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bolingreen2 sentences2017See id. (concluding that testimony regarding the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test was admitted in error over the defendant’s objection because the witness was not qualified as an expert, and remanding for a new trial when the State’s evidence consisted primarily of testimony regarding that test). - 10 - However, the Defendant here failed to object to the testimony, waiving the issue. 2017See id. (concluding that testimony regarding the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test was admitted in error over the defendant’s objection because the witness was not qualified as an expert, and remanding for a new trial when the State’s evidence consisted primarily of testimony regarding that test). - 10 - However, the Defendant here failed to object to the testimony, waiving the issue. | 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 of Tennessee v. David Dwayne Bell
green
1 sentence2016The horizontal gaze nystagmus test “tracks the [horizontal] movements of the eyes in order to gauge whether an individual might be under the influence of an intoxicant.” State v. Bell, 429 S.W.3d 524 , 527 n.5 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Murphy, 953 S.W.2d 200, 201-02 (Tenn. 1997)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Evid. 702 and 703 as announced in McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997).” State v. Murphy, 953 S.W.2d 200, 201 (Tenn. 1997). -2- This Motion to Suppress was heard on the 13th 2 day of February[,] 2012. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.