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 1983–2015 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. Burnsgreen1 sentence2015In State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 466-69 (Tenn.1999), this Court set out a framework for determining whether an offense should be included as a lesser-included offense in a particular case. | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Buddgreen1 sentence2012In Daniel , this Court set out factors to be used in the determination of whether a seizure has taken place: (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the words used by the officer; (3) the officer’s tone of voice and general demean- or; (4) the officer’s statements to others who were present during the encounter; (5) the threatening presence of several of- *476 fleers; (6) the display of a weapon by an officer; and (7) the physical touching of the person. 12 S.W.3d at 425-26 ; see also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 , 108 S.Ct. 1975 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988); Mendenhall | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Chesternutgreen2 sentences2012In Daniel , this Court set out factors to be used in the determination of whether a seizure has taken place: (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the words used by the officer; (3) the officer’s tone of voice and general demean- or; (4) the officer’s statements to others who were present during the encounter; (5) the threatening presence of several of- *476 fleers; (6) the display of a weapon by an officer; and (7) the physical touching of the person. 12 S.W.3d at 425-26 ; see also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 , 108 S.Ct. 1975 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988); Mendenhall 2012In Daniel , this Court set out factors to be used in the determination of whether a seizure has taken place: (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the words used by the officer; (3) the officer’s tone of voice and general demean- or; (4) the officer’s statements to others who were present during the encounter; (5) the threatening presence of several of- *476 fleers; (6) the display of a weapon by an officer; and (7) the physical touching of the person. 12 S.W.3d at 425-26 ; see also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 , 108 S.Ct. 1975 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988); Mendenhall | 1 | 1 |
State v. Philpottred1 sentence1999These factors are as follows: 1. the conduct complained of in light of the facts and circumstances of the case; 2. the curative measures undertaken; 3. the intent of the prosecutor in making the improper remarks; 4. the cumulative effect of the improper conduct and any other errors in the record; and, 5. the relative strength or weakness of the case. 882 S.W.2d 394, 408 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Richardson
green
2 sentences1999Co. of America v. Richardson, 23 Tenn.App. 194 , 129 S.W.2d 1107 (1939), the court set out the rule for construction of insurance contracts as: “Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used, and if they are clear and unambiguous, their terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense. 1999Co. of America v. Richardson, 23 Tenn.App. 194 , 129 S.W.2d 1107 (1939), the court set out the rule for construction of insurance contracts as: “Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used, and if they are clear and unambiguous, their terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense. | 2 | 1983–1999 |
Masiers v. Arrow Transfer & Storage Co.
green
2 sentences1990First, this Court set out the factors to be used when determining the status of a work relationship in Masiers v. Arrow Transfer & Storage Co., 639 S.W.2d 654 (Tenn.1982). 1989In Masiers v. Arrow Transfer & Storage Co., 639 S.W.2d 654 (Tenn.1982), this Court set out the factors to be used when determining the status of a work relationship. | 2 | 1989–1990 |
United States v. Mendenhall
green
2 sentences2012In Daniel , this Court set out factors to be used in the determination of whether a seizure has taken place: (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the words used by the officer; (3) the officer’s tone of voice and general demean- or; (4) the officer’s statements to others who were present during the encounter; (5) the threatening presence of several of- *476 fleers; (6) the display of a weapon by an officer; and (7) the physical touching of the person. 12 S.W.3d at 425-26 ; see also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 , 108 S.Ct. 1975 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988); Mendenhall 2012In Daniel , this Court set out factors to be used in the determination of whether a seizure has taken place: (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the words used by the officer; (3) the officer’s tone of voice and general demean- or; (4) the officer’s statements to others who were present during the encounter; (5) the threatening presence of several of- *476 fleers; (6) the display of a weapon by an officer; and (7) the physical touching of the person. 12 S.W.3d at 425-26 ; see also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 , 108 S.Ct. 1975 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988); Mendenhall | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Daniel
green
2 sentences2012In Daniel , this Court set out factors to be used in the determination of whether a seizure has taken place: (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the words used by the officer; (3) the officer’s tone of voice and general demean- or; (4) the officer’s statements to others who were present during the encounter; (5) the threatening presence of several of- *476 fleers; (6) the display of a weapon by an officer; and (7) the physical touching of the person. 12 S.W.3d at 425-26 ; see also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 , 108 S.Ct. 1975 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988); Mendenhall 2012This Court described the test as “ ‘necessarily imprecise because it is designed to assess the coercive effect of police conduct, taken as a whole, rather than to focus on particular details of that conduct in isolation,’ ” Daniel, 12 S.W.3d at 426 (quoting Chesternut, 486 U.S. at 573 , 108 S.Ct. 1975 ), and further observed that the display of a weapon by the police “convey[s] a message that compliance ... is required.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. McKnight
green
2 sentences1999In McKnight, 900 S.W.2d at 51 , this Court set out factors to consider when conducting this balancing test. 1999These factors include “the prosecution’s need for the evidence, the likelihood the defendant committed the other crimes, and the degree of its relevance.” Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.