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 1 courts 2005–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2009First, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-94 ; see also Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 169 (2005). 2009First, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-94 ; see also Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005). | 4 | 4 |
Miller-El v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2021See Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 ; see also Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 239 (2005). 2009See Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 ; see also Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005). | 4 | 4 |
Johnson v. Californiagreen2 sentences2009First, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-94 ; see also Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 169 (2005). 2009First, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-94 ; see also Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hugueleygreen1 sentence2022“If the trial court determines that the proffered reason is merely pretextual and that a racial motive is in fact behind the challenge, the juror may not be excluded.” Id. (citing State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356, 369 (Tenn. 2006); Woodson v. Porter Brown Limestone Co., Inc., 916 S.W.2d 896, 903 (Tenn. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Woodson v. Porter Brown Limestone Co.green1 sentence2022“If the trial court determines that the proffered reason is merely pretextual and that a racial motive is in fact behind the challenge, the juror may not be excluded.” Id. (citing State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356, 369 (Tenn. 2006); Woodson v. Porter Brown Limestone Co., Inc., 916 S.W.2d 896, 903 (Tenn. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Purkett v. Elem
green
2 sentences2022Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768 . 2022“Finally, if the proponent provides a race-neutral explanation, the trial court must then determine, from all the circumstances, whether the explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the peremptory challenge established purposeful discrimination.” Id. (citations omitted). | 4 | 2005–2022 |
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.