accuracy test (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

accuracy test in Tennessee

9 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1949–2018 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Big Fork Mining Co. v. Tennessee Water Quality Control Boardgreen
tennctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010This general rule is especially applicable where there is no "showing of prejudice." Big Fork Mining Co., v. Tennessee Water Quality Control Bd., 620 S.W.2d 515, 521 (Tenn. App. 1981).

11
State v. Conwaygreen
tenncrimapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003However, in State v. Conway, 77 S.W.3d 213, 220 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Rodriguezgreen
tenncrimapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
1 sentence

2001The accuracy of this analysis was questioned by State v. Rodriguez, 752 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Copelandgreen
tenncrimapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000App. 1988), and the accuracy of the test became a jury question, see State v. Copeland, 677 S.W.2d 471, 474 (Tenn. Crim.

11
State v. Johnsongreen
tenncrimapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996This court has stated that “the defendant’s greatest challenge to the accuracy of the breath test is the independent blood test to which each accused has a statutory right.” State v. Johnson, 717 S.W.2d 298, 305 (Tenn.Crim.App.1986).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State of Tennessee v. Fred Chad Clark, II green
tenn · 2014
1 sentence

2018Id. at 298-99 .

12018–2018
State v. Jones green
tenncrimapp · 1986
1 sentence

2010Our court ruled that the accuracy of the claim did not mean the defendant was entitled to substantive relief: "it is the general rule in Tennessee that statutory provisions which relate to the mode or time of doing an act to which the statute applies are not to be mandatory, but directory only." Id.

12010–2010
State v. Palmer green
tenncrimapp · 1999
1 sentence

2000Palmer, 10 S.W.3d at 645 .

12000–2000
Sites v. State green
md · 1984
2 sentences

1996The majority quotes extensively from Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984), which held that a drunk driving suspect has a due process right to communicate with counsel, where doing so will not impair the accuracy of the test.

1996The majority quotes extensively from Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984), which held that a drunk driving suspect has a due process right to communicate with counsel, where doing so will not impair the accuracy of the test.

11996–1996
State v. Frasier green
tenn · 1996
1 sentence

1996The court further noted that any compromise of the accuracy of such a test “is a crucial consequence, given the importance of scientific evidence in DUI eases.” Id.

11996–1996
Wootton Land & Fuel Co. v. Ownbey green
ca8 · 1920
1 sentence

1949Complainants call attention to the rules as to the character and degree of proof required of a fiduciary in his accounting citing among other authorities Gibson, Secs. 46 and 449 and especially Wooton Land & Fuel Co. v. Ownbey, 8 Cir., 265 F. 91 , wherein it is said among other things that the accounting party must prove any allowances or credits he claims to have been expended' on behalf of his principal, that he should present an itemized statement showing the details of expenditures, with the vouchers, receipts, and memoranda supporting *670 Ms claim; that he should show in detail, and not

11949–1949

Where else courts name it

MN 74 (1979–2026) OH 49 (1975–2024) NY 43 (1901–2023) CA 31 (1959–2025) IL 24 (1910–2023) IA 20 (1970–2024) MO 17 (1965–2023) FL 16 (1958–2018) WA 15 (1975–2024) NM 12 (1983–2019) NJ 10 (1975–2022) VA 9 (1967–2025) IN 9 (1900–2014) ND 9 (1981–2008) MS 9 (1988–2020) TN 9 (1949–2018) TX 8 (1983–2024) ID 8 (1991–2017) MD 8 (1986–2024) UT 7 (1980–2023) MA 7 (1974–2009) MI 7 (1977–2020) OR 7 (1979–2012) PA 6 (1955–2011) NE 6 (1907–2017) KS 5 (1926–2024) LA 5 (1984–1990) HI 5 (1999–2021) AZ 5 (1954–2016) VT 5 (1982–2023) GA 4 (1990–2012) DC 4 (2020–2023) KY 4 (1970–2008) NC 4 (1973–2022) AL 4 (1986–2003) WY 4 (2002–2007) WI 4 (1909–2022) MT 3 (2003–2008) OK 3 (1969–2004) WV 3 (1979–1988) CO 3 (1980–1990) RI 3 (1996–2005) DE 3 (1972–2017) SD 2 (1975–2002) CT 2 (1989–2001) ME 2 (2011–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check