10 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hembree v. Stategreen2 sentences1985Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235, 240 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976); State v. Plummer, 658 S.W.2d 141, 143 (Tenn.Cr.App.1983). 1985In Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235 (Tenn.Crim.App.1976), this court stated that the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible in evidence and the circumstances surrounding the taking or not taking of such test is likewise inadmissible. | 4 | 5 |
Marable v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Marable v. State, 203 Tenn. 440, 456 , 313 S.W.2d 451, 458-59 (1958) (stating that “the objectionable evidence [results of a lie detector test] after being volunteered by a State witness was gone into at length by further cross examination on the subject by the plaintiff in error. 2000Marable v. State, 203 Tenn. 440, 456 , 313 S.W.2d 451, 458-59 (1958) (stating that “the objectionable evidence [results of a lie detector test] after being volunteered by a State witness was gone into at length by further cross examination on the subject by the plaintiff in error. | 1 | 3 |
Grant v. Stategreen2 sentences1985Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440 , 374 S.W.2d 391, 392 (1964); State v. Hailey, 658 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983); Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235, 240 (Tenn.Crim.App.1976). 1985Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440 , 374 S.W.2d 391, 392 (1964); State v. Hailey, 658 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983); Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235, 240 (Tenn.Crim.App.1976). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Adkinsgreen2 sentences1996Also, in State v. Adkins, 710 S.W.2d 525, 528-29 (Tenn.Crim.App.1985), the court held the part of the defendant’s statement about his willingness to take a lie detector test was inadmissable because of case law holding that evidence of the willingness or unwillingness to take a lie detector test is irrelevant. 1996Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Plummergreen1 sentence1985Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235, 240 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976); State v. Plummer, 658 S.W.2d 141, 143 (Tenn.Cr.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haileygreen1 sentence1985Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440 , 374 S.W.2d 391, 392 (1964); State v. Hailey, 658 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983); Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235, 240 (Tenn.Crim.App.1976). | 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. Kolander
green
2 sentences1958As authority for this proposition the plaintiff in error cites the case of State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W. 2d 458, 465 , which holds this, that it is reversible error to do so. 1958As authority for this proposition the plaintiff in error cites the case of State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W. 2d 458, 465 , which holds this, that it is reversible error to do so. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.