agreement violation (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

agreement violation in Tennessee

7 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1953–2024 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Bruno v. Stategreen
tenn · 1951 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000Ill When initially presented with the question of whether immunity agreements between officers and a defendant are enforceable, this Court has previously held that a defendant who “ ‘testifies or agrees to testify on behalf of the prosecution ... with the understanding or promise, express or implied, that he [or she] will ... not be prosecuted for his [or her] offense’ is not entitled to “ ‘immunity as a matter of right; and such facts may not be pleaded in bar of a prosecution.’ ” Brano v. State, 192 Tenn. 244, 249-50 , 240 S.W.2d 528, 530 (1951) (citation omitted).

2000Ill When initially presented with the question of whether immunity agreements between officers and a defendant are enforceable, this Court has previously held that a defendant who “ ‘testifies or agrees to testify on behalf of the prosecution ... with the understanding or promise, express or implied, that he [or she] will ... not be prosecuted for his [or her] offense’ is not entitled to “ ‘immunity as a matter of right; and such facts may not be pleaded in bar of a prosecution.’ ” Brano v. State, 192 Tenn. 244, 249-50 , 240 S.W.2d 528, 530 (1951) (citation omitted).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. McMullin green
tenncrimapp · 1990
2 sentences

2016Id. at 832 .

1995Id. at 832 .

21995–2016
Poole v. Union Planters Bank, N.A. green
tennctapp · 2010
1 sentence

2024Id. at 784 .

12024–2024
State v. Howington green
tenn · 1995
2 sentences

2004We note that on January 7, 2003, at the conclusion of the last hearing on his motion to dismiss, the only claim the defendant made as to “materiality,” as we understand his arguments, was that the “deviation” in the FBI scoring of the polygraph was not “material to the contract,” resulting in the fact, according to the defendant’s argument at the hearing, that the defendant “passed the polygraph.” Thus, the issue of the materiality to the agreement of the requirement that the defendant pass the polygraph was not presented to or reviewed by the trial court. *33 Determining in Howington whether

2004The court instructed that, in assessing such an agreement in a criminal case, “ ‘the most important consideration is the incriminating nature of the proferred [sic] statements, not the amount of information provided to the government.’ ” Id.

12004–2004
Mansell v. Mansell green
scotus · 1989
1 sentence

1997Id. at 689 .

11997–1997
Whitley v. White green
tenn · 1940
2 sentences

1953Perhaps it is not amiss to repeat here, as this Court did in Whitley v. White, 176 Tenn. 206 , 140 S. W. (2d) 157, 159 , the following statement contained in Osborne v. Allen, to wit: “ ‘Contracts made for the purpose of unduly controlling or affecting official conduct of the exercise of legislative, administrative.and judicial functions, are plainly opposed to public policy.

1953Perhaps it is not amiss to repeat here, as this Court did in Whitley v. White, 176 Tenn. 206 , 140 S. W. (2d) 157, 159 , the following statement contained in Osborne v. Allen, to wit: “ ‘Contracts made for the purpose of unduly controlling or affecting official conduct of the exercise of legislative, administrative.and judicial functions, are plainly opposed to public policy.

11953–1953

Where else courts name it

NY 98 (1885–2026) TX 85 (1912–2026) CA 71 (1902–2024) IL 49 (1917–2025) GA 37 (1939–2026) PA 35 (1811–2023) MI 26 (1941–2023) FL 18 (1903–2021) MD 17 (1977–2022) OH 17 (1941–2025) CT 16 (1982–2024) MO 16 (1865–2024) AZ 15 (1977–2026) MA 15 (1862–2018) WA 15 (2004–2025) NC 13 (1922–2014) DE 12 (1989–2024) NE 11 (1928–2015) VA 11 (1913–2025) IN 11 (1839–2007) NJ 11 (1949–2022) OR 10 (1894–2022) WI 9 (1902–2020) NM 8 (1990–2024) OK 8 (1930–2002) AL 8 (1906–2026) WY 8 (1975–2020) MS 7 (1943–2021) LA 7 (1931–2017) TN 7 (1953–2024) WV 6 (1890–2017) MT 6 (1906–1997) NV 5 (1882–2020) SD 5 (1977–2026) IA 5 (1890–2018) MN 5 (1867–2024) RI 5 (1985–2026) SC 4 (1983–2020) ME 4 (1957–2010) ID 4 (1927–2023) VT 3 (1997–2022) KS 3 (1912–1993) AR 2 (1918–1928) CO 2 (1984–1991) HI 2 (1939–2009) DC 2 (2009–2021) KY 2 (1933–1952)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check