10 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Manson v. Brathwaitegreen1 sentence2020Mason v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); see State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118, 138-39 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bondsgreen1 sentence2020Mason v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); see State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118, 138-39 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griffisgreen1 sentence2012App. 1997) (“[D]efense counsel’s stipulation is only one factor that the trial court must weigh in determining whether the probative value of the photograph outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice. . . .”); State v. Griffis, 964 S.W.2d 577, 595 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schafergreen1 sentence2012Offers by the defense to stipulate to certain facts or the failure of the defense to dispute testimonial descriptions may also be relevant to a trial court’s admissibility analysis, see id. at 951-52, but do not, standing alone, prohibit the admission of such pictures, see, e.g., State v. Schafer, 973 S.W.2d 269, 274 (Tenn. Crim. | 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. Brown
green
2 sentences2018The court first observed that the evidence was “clearly relevant to rebut the State’s medical proof . . . and met the threshold admissibility standard of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412.” Id. at 434 . 2009The court first observed that the evidence was “clearly relevant to rebut the State’s medical proof . . . and met the threshold admissibility standard of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412.” Id. at 434 . | 2 | 2009–2018 |
State v. Sensing
green
2 sentences1997At trial, the appellant challenged the admissibility of the test results under State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). 1997Prior to Sensing, a prerequisite to the admissibility of the test results was that the operator had to "know the scientific technology involved in the function of the machine." Id. at 416 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Osborne
green
1 sentence2020In order to meet the admissibility requirement of the second prong of admissibility under Rule 14(b)(1), the trial court must conclude first that “the evidence of each offense is relevant to some material issue in the trial of the other offense under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2),” and it must also find that “the probative value of the evidence of the other offense is not outweighed by the prejudicial consequences of admission under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)(4).” Osborne, 251 S.W.3d at 12 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2010Appellant tries to cast the issue as one concerning her constitutional rights to confrontation under Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 , and the admissibility of the test results under Daubert, 509 U.S. 579 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Appellant tries to cast the issue as one concerning her constitutional rights to confrontation under Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 , and the admissibility of the test results under Daubert, 509 U.S. 579 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Bobo
green
1 sentence1997Our supreme court “deeline[d] the state’s invitation to eliminate as an admissibility requirement that the testing operator follow the prescribed operational procedure.” Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Chandler
green
1 sentence1979State v. Chandler, 547 S.W.2d 918 (Tenn.1977). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.