8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2018 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kochgreen2 sentences2005Lastly, in State v. Koch, 175 Wis.2d 684 , 499 N.W.2d 152, 160 (1993), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that although a judicial probable cause determination was not made within forty-eight hours after the defendant’s warrantless arrest, the evidence obtained was not a consequence of the violation and need not be suppressed. 2005Lastly, in State v. Koch, 175 Wis.2d 684 , 499 N.W.2d 152, 160 (1993), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that although a judicial probable cause determination was not made within forty-eight hours after the defendant’s warrantless arrest, the evidence obtained was not a consequence of the violation and need not be suppressed. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Huntergreen2 sentences2018State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643, 647 (Tenn. 1999). 2014Hunter, 1 S.W.3d at 647 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Reamsgreen1 sentence2015State v. Reams, 265 S.W.3d 423, 430 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1998A consequence of a Miranda waiver is “that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 1998A consequence of a Miranda waiver is “that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.