67 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 15 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. Woodgreen2 sentences2026As to the second factor, the reason for the delay, we note that the Tennessee Supreme Court identified the following reasons for delay: “(1) intentional delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defense or delay designed to harass the defendant; (2) bureaucratic indifference or negligence; (3) delay necessary to the fair and effective prosecution of the case; and (4) delay caused, or acquiesced in, by the defense.” Id. at 346-47 (footnotes omitted). 2025Delays can be “intentional . . . to gain a tactical advantage over the defense or . . . designed to harass the defendant.” State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342, 346 (Tenn. 1996). | 41 | 62 |
State v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2025Wood, 924 S.W.2d at 346-47 ; see also Simmons, 54 S.W.3d at 759 . 2021State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342, 346 (Tenn. 1996); see also Simmons, 54 S.W.3d at 759 . | 6 | 6 |
State v. Vickersgreen2 sentences2013Reasons for delay fall within four identifiable categories: “(1) intentional delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defense or delay designed to harass the defendant; (2) bureaucratic indifference or negligence; (3) delay necessary to the fair and effective prosecution of the case; and (4) delay caused, or acquiesced in, by the defense.” State v. Vickers, 985 S.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Tenn. Crim. 2013Reasons for delay fall within four identifiable categories: “(1) intentional delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defense or delay designed to harass the defendant; (2) bureaucratic indifference or negligence; (3) delay necessary to the fair and effective prosecution of the case; and (4) delay caused, or acquiesced in, by the defense.” State v. Vickers, 985 S.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 4 |
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2024Wood, 942 S.W.2d at 346-47 ; see also Barker, 407 U.S. at 531 . 2022Intentional delay is “weighted heavily” against the State while “negligence or oversight are considered against the government but afforded comparatively more neutral weight.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 531 . | 1 | 6 |
State v. Utleygreen1 sentence2013See State v. Carico, 968 S.W.2d 280, 284 , 285 n.4 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Utley, 956 S.W.2d 489, 495 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 755 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gilleygreen1 sentence2013See State v. Carico, 968 S.W.2d 280, 284 , 285 n.4 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Utley, 956 S.W.2d 489, 495 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 755 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Caricogreen1 sentence2013See State v. Carico, 968 S.W.2d 280, 284 , 285 n.4 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Utley, 956 S.W.2d 489, 495 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 755 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wallacegreen1 sentence2002State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342, 346-347 (Tenn. 1996); cf. State v. Wallace, 648 S.W.2d 264, 269 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2002See State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767, 769 (Tenn. 2000 ). -6- Reasons for delay generally fall into four categories: “(1) intentional delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defense or delay designed to harass the defendant; (2) bureaucratic indifference or negligence; (3) delay necessary to the fair and effective prosecution of the case; and (4) delay caused, or acquiesced in, by the defense.” Wood, 924 S.W.2d at 346-47 (footnotes omitted). | 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. Easterly
green
2 sentences2014Intentional delay is “weighted heavily” against the State while “negligence or oversight are considered against the [State] but afforded comparatively more neutral weight.” Easterly, 77 S.W.3d at 236 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 631 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 ). 2014Intentional delay is “weighted heavily” against the State while “negligence or oversight are considered against the [State] but afforded comparatively more neutral weight.” Easterly, 77 S.W.3d at 236 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 531 ). | 3 | 2011–2014 |
State v. Basile
green
1 sentence2024Wood, 942 S.W.2d at 346-47 ; see also Barker, 407 U.S. at 531 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.