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.
8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2016 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. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2015Cf. State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 556 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting the Block-burger test for determining whether multiple convictions offend double jeopardy); State v. Feaster, 466 S.W.3d 80, 87 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that Watkins may be applied retroactively). . 2015Cf. State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 556 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting the Block-burger test for determining whether multiple convictions offend double jeopardy); State v. Feaster, 466 S.W.3d 80, 87 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that Watkins may be applied retroactively). . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Blackgreen2 sentences1995The Block-burger test was recognized and applied by the Tennessee Supreme Court in State v. Black, 524 S.W.2d 913, 920 (Tenn.1975) (holding that the facts supported two distinct offenses of armed robbery and assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree). 1995The Block-burger test was recognized and applied by the Tennessee Supreme Court in State v. Black, 524 S.W.2d 913, 920 (Tenn.1975) (holding that the facts supported two distinct offenses of armed robbery and assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree). | 1 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Terrence Justin Feastergreen2 sentences2015Cf. State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 556 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting the Block-burger test for determining whether multiple convictions offend double jeopardy); State v. Feaster, 466 S.W.3d 80, 87 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that Watkins may be applied retroactively). . 2015Cf. State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 556 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting the Block-burger test for determining whether multiple convictions offend double jeopardy); State v. Feaster, 466 S.W.3d 80, 87 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that Watkins may be applied retroactively). . | 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. Stephenson
red
2 sentences2006State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d at 538 . 2006State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d at 538 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Duchac v. State
green
1 sentence1997In order to determine whether multiple convictions for a single criminal action which violates two distinct statutes is permissible under Tennessee law, we must now go beyond the “Block-burger test” and engage in the following four prong inquiry: “(1) a Blockburger analysis of the statutory offenses; (2) an analysis, guided by the principles of Duchac [v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn.1973) ], of the evidence used to prove the offenses; (3) a consideration of whether there were multiple victims or discrete acts; and (4) a comparison of the purposes of the respective statutes.” Denton, 938 S.W.2d | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Denton
red
2 sentences1997In order to determine whether multiple convictions for a single criminal action which violates two distinct statutes is permissible under Tennessee law, we must now go beyond the “Block-burger test” and engage in the following four prong inquiry: “(1) a Blockburger analysis of the statutory offenses; (2) an analysis, guided by the principles of Duchac [v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn.1973) ], of the evidence used to prove the offenses; (3) a consideration of whether there were multiple victims or discrete acts; and (4) a comparison of the purposes of the respective statutes.” Denton, 938 S.W.2d 1997Moreover, we are to keep in mind that “[n]one of these steps is determinative; rather, the results of each must be weighed and considered in relation to each other.” Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1995The Court formulated the “Block-burger test” to determine the identity of offenses: [W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. at 184 . 1995The Court formulated the “Block-burger test” to determine the identity of offenses: [W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. at 184 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.