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 1950–2012 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. Lathamgreen1 sentence2012See State v. Lathan, 910 S.W.2d 892, 896 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cecil Ray Johnsongreen1 sentence2012A Carfax report for one of the automobiles in question was attached to the post-conviction petition, but this report did not have a value generated for the car. -5- authenticated); see also Johnson, 515 F.2d at 732 n.4 (admitting evidence because “an adequate foundation was established by the lengthy testimony . . . explaining how ‘Red Book’ data are collected and used” and because “[a]ny weakness inherent in the use of ‘Red Book’ figures caused by the fact that they represent only averages and do not take into consideration the condition of any particular automobile was adequately brought out | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences1951The defense of entrapment is not recognized in this State, Thomas v. State, 182 Tenn. 380 , 187 S.W.2d 529 . 1951The defense of entrapment is not recognized in this State, Thomas v. State, 182 Tenn. 380 , 187 S.W.2d 529 . | 2 | 1950–1951 |
Irick v. State
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 789-90 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2006The defendant complains that “the trial court erred by failing to force the State to elect a day on which [the defendant] committed the crime of violation of the sex offender registry.” In State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn.2000), our supreme court explained that election of offenses is not required when the prohibited conduct is continuing: In cases when the charged offense consists of a discrete act and proof is intro *620 duced of a series of acts, the state will be required to make an election. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
King v. State
green
2 sentences1965King v. State, 216 Tenn. 215 , 391 S.W.2d 637 (1965). 1965King v. State, 216 Tenn. 215 , 391 S.W.2d 637 (1965). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Watson v. State
green
2 sentences1956Also in Johnson v. State, 1925, 152 Tenn. 184 , 274 S.W. 12 ; Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S.W. 462 , and in Watson v. State, 166 Tenn. 400 , 61 S.W.2d 476 , wherein again this Court held that the statute precluding reversal for non-prejudicial error, 27-117, T.C.A., is inapplicable to a jury’s misconduct in viewing the scene of the crime and hearing testimony there since this violated the accused’s constitutional rights. 1956Also in Johnson v. State, 1925, 152 Tenn. 184 , 274 S.W. 12 ; Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S.W. 462 , and in Watson v. State, 166 Tenn. 400 , 61 S.W.2d 476 , wherein again this Court held that the statute precluding reversal for non-prejudicial error, 27-117, T.C.A., is inapplicable to a jury’s misconduct in viewing the scene of the crime and hearing testimony there since this violated the accused’s constitutional rights. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Johnson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1956Also in Johnson v. State, 1925, 152 Tenn. 184 , 274 S.W. 12 ; Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S.W. 462 , and in Watson v. State, 166 Tenn. 400 , 61 S.W.2d 476 , wherein again this Court held that the statute precluding reversal for non-prejudicial error, 27-117, T.C.A., is inapplicable to a jury’s misconduct in viewing the scene of the crime and hearing testimony there since this violated the accused’s constitutional rights. 1956Also in Johnson v. State, 1925, 152 Tenn. 184 , 274 S.W. 12 ; Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S.W. 462 , and in Watson v. State, 166 Tenn. 400 , 61 S.W.2d 476 , wherein again this Court held that the statute precluding reversal for non-prejudicial error, 27-117, T.C.A., is inapplicable to a jury’s misconduct in viewing the scene of the crime and hearing testimony there since this violated the accused’s constitutional rights. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Upchurch v. State
green
2 sentences1956Also in Johnson v. State, 1925, 152 Tenn. 184 , 274 S.W. 12 ; Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S.W. 462 , and in Watson v. State, 166 Tenn. 400 , 61 S.W.2d 476 , wherein again this Court held that the statute precluding reversal for non-prejudicial error, 27-117, T.C.A., is inapplicable to a jury’s misconduct in viewing the scene of the crime and hearing testimony there since this violated the accused’s constitutional rights. 1956Also in Johnson v. State, 1925, 152 Tenn. 184 , 274 S.W. 12 ; Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S.W. 462 , and in Watson v. State, 166 Tenn. 400 , 61 S.W.2d 476 , wherein again this Court held that the statute precluding reversal for non-prejudicial error, 27-117, T.C.A., is inapplicable to a jury’s misconduct in viewing the scene of the crime and hearing testimony there since this violated the accused’s constitutional rights. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.