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.
10 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2013–2017 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. Aucoingreen1 sentence2014See State v. Aucoin, 756 S.W.2d 705, 709 (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 of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Kristopher King and Kasey Lynn King
green
2 sentences2017It concluded that several of the questions were not dispositive, limiting review to: whether the wiretap applications provided a substantial basis for probable cause in accordance with the standard recited at Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-6-304(c)(4);2 whether 2 In a footnote, this court clarified that [a]lthough the first of the issues [in the] [Petitioner’s] certified questions refers 5 the wiretap applications satisfied the requisite necessity requirement found at section 40- 6-304(a)(3); if the wiretap applications contained errors that invalidated the applications’ validity; and whe 2017It concluded that several of the questions were not dispositive, limiting review to: whether the wiretap applications provided a substantial basis for probable cause in accordance with the standard recited at Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-6-304(c)(4);2 whether 2 In a footnote, this court clarified that [a]lthough the first of the issues [in the] [Petitioner’s] certified questions refers 5 the wiretap applications satisfied the requisite necessity requirement found at section 40- 6-304(a)(3); if the wiretap applications contained errors that invalidated the applications’ validity; and whe | 5 | 2017–2017 |
McClellan v. Board of Regents of the State University
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 237-38 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Donna Faye Shipley v. Robin Williams
green
1 sentence2014At the time of the 2011 hearing, Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011), which clarified the requirements of the locality rule, was pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court. -3- conduct a voir dire examination of Dr. Gorrell. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Odom
green
1 sentence2013The standard of review for a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in a suppression hearing was established in State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Roach v. Renfro
green
1 sentence2013Despite Son’s assertion to the contrary, this court declined to rule upon whether a specific statute of limitations was applicable in Roach. 989 S.W.2d at 341 . | 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.