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 3 courts 1997–2004 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. Livingstongreen2 sentences2004Id. 1999Such evidence may be “admissible as substantive evidence if it satisfies some hearsay exception and as corroborative evidence if it satisfies the prior consistent statement rule.” State v. Livingston, 907 S.W.2d 392, 395 (Tenn. 1995) (emphasis added). | 3 | 7 |
Davidson v. Holtzmangreen2 sentences2002See Davidson v. Holtzman, 47 S.W.3d 445, 455 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). 2002Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.