10 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1921–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gentile v. State Bar of Nev.green1 sentence2024See Parrish, 556 S.W.3d at 165 (listing courts that have “rejected the proposition that the First Amendment provides absolute protection to attorney speech”).54 Indeed, historically, the courts have long regulated the practice of law “and exercised the authority to discipline and ultimately to disbar lawyers whose conduct departed from prescribed standards.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1066 . | 1 | 1 |
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY v. Larry Edward PARRISHgreen1 sentence2024See Parrish, 556 S.W.3d at 165 (listing courts that have “rejected the proposition that the First Amendment provides absolute protection to attorney speech”).54 Indeed, historically, the courts have long regulated the practice of law “and exercised the authority to discipline and ultimately to disbar lawyers whose conduct departed from prescribed standards.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1066 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Sedrick Claytongreen1 sentence2019State v. Clayton , 535 S.W.3d 829 , 849 (Tenn. 2017) ("Whether the police possessed probable cause requires consideration of the 'collective knowledge that law enforcement possessed at the time of the arrest....' ") (quoting State v. Bishop , 431 S.W.3d 22 , 36 (Tenn. 2014) ); *581 Bishop , 431 S.W.3d at 36 (explaining that consideration of the collective knowledge requires that "a sufficient nexus of communication existed between the arresting officer and any other officer or officers who possessed relevant information. | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Bishopgreen2 sentences2019State v. Clayton , 535 S.W.3d 829 , 849 (Tenn. 2017) ("Whether the police possessed probable cause requires consideration of the 'collective knowledge that law enforcement possessed at the time of the arrest....' ") (quoting State v. Bishop , 431 S.W.3d 22 , 36 (Tenn. 2014) ); *581 Bishop , 431 S.W.3d at 36 (explaining that consideration of the collective knowledge requires that "a sufficient nexus of communication existed between the arresting officer and any other officer or officers who possessed relevant information. 2019State v. Clayton , 535 S.W.3d 829 , 849 (Tenn. 2017) ("Whether the police possessed probable cause requires consideration of the 'collective knowledge that law enforcement possessed at the time of the arrest....' ") (quoting State v. Bishop , 431 S.W.3d 22 , 36 (Tenn. 2014) ); *581 Bishop , 431 S.W.3d at 36 (explaining that consideration of the collective knowledge requires that "a sufficient nexus of communication existed between the arresting officer and any other officer or officers who possessed relevant information. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McKinneygreen1 sentence2001In State v. McKinney, 929 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tenn.Crim.App.1996), which was decided under the prior statute, this court recognized the conviction to conviction calculation method as adjudicated by Sizemore. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1981Smith v. State, 587 S.W.2d 659, 661 (1979). 1981Smith v. State, 587 S.W.2d 659, 661 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Woodfolk v. Marley
green
2 sentences2011Woodfolk v. Marley, 98 Tenn. 467 , 40 S.W. 479 ; Porter’s Lessee v. Cocke, 7 Tenn. 30 ; Shelby’s Heirs v. Shelby, 3 Tenn. 179 . 2011Woodfolk v. Marley, 98 Tenn. 467 , 40 S.W. 479 ; Porter’s Lessee v. Cocke, 7 Tenn. 30 ; Shelby’s Heirs v. Shelby, 3 Tenn. 179 . | 4 | 1975–2011 |
Heirs of Shelby v. Shelby
green
2 sentences2011Woodfolk v. Marley, 98 Tenn. 467 , 40 S.W. 479 ; Porter’s Lessee v. Cocke, 7 Tenn. 30 ; Shelby’s Heirs v. Shelby, 3 Tenn. 179 . 2005Woodfolk v. Marley, 98 Tenn. 467 , 40 S.W. 479 ; Porter’s Lessee v. Cocke, 7 Tenn. 29 ; Shelby’s Heirs v. Shelby, 3 Tenn. 179 . | 4 | 1975–2011 |
Porter's Lessee v. Cocke
green
1 sentence2005Woodfolk v. Marley, 98 Tenn. 467 , 40 S.W. 479 ; Porter’s Lessee v. Cocke, 7 Tenn. 29 ; Shelby’s Heirs v. Shelby, 3 Tenn. 179 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Maxwell v. Corporation of Jonesboro
neutral
1 sentence1945For example, in the early case of Maxwell v. Corporation of Jonesboro, 58 Tenn. 257 , an ordinance regulating the hours of closing of retailers of liquor was challenged as unreasonable. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
New York & Texas Land Co. v. Dooley
neutral
1 sentence1921As was said by this court in Dietzel v. State, 132 Tenn., 71 , 177 S. W., 54 : “The general rule undoubtedly is, where evidence of contradictory statements is offered to impeach the credit of a witness, testimony that on former occasions the witness made statements sustaining those made by him on the stand is inadmissible.” But this court has recognized an exception to the rule in Legere v. State, 111 Tenn., 378 , 77 S. W., 1060 , 102 Am. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.