7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 2 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. Hillgreen2 sentences2026This court has found testimony of field-test results from the officer who conducted the testing to be admissible in a trial to “prove the plant material was marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v Hill, 638 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Tenn. Crim. 2018See Hill, 638 S.W.2d at 830 (finding evidence of marijuana possession sufficient when the investigating officer “testified he conducted a field test, as he had been trained to do, by placing a chemical on the plant and the test was positive for marijuana”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence2025State v. White, 269 S.W.3d 903, 906-07 (Tenn. 2008) (upholding conviction for simple possession of marijuana based on the officer’s testimony that the plant material was marijuana); State v. Siner, No. W2020- 01719-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 252354 , at *8 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2015State v. Anderson, 644 S.W.2d 423, 424 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority
green
2 sentences2014App., Nashville, Dec. 9, 1998), in which this court stated that “[i]f the state was relying totally upon the field test to establish that the suspected substance was in fact marijuana, we would be compelled to reverse [the conviction of possession] and remand for a new trial.” Id., slip op. at 5. 2014In Mikel Primm, however, the State “concede[d] the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for [the officer’s] testimony regarding the field test.” Id., slip op. at 4. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Yarbro
green
1 sentence1991Yarbro, 618 S.W.2d at 523 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bodne v. Austin
green
1 sentence1979Counsel for appellee asserts that this case is barred by collateral estoppel, referring to the disposition of the case involving the same questions of fact which was dismissed and finally terminated in the Federal District Court, and, furthermore argues that it is barred by the Statute of Limitations, citing Bodne v. Austin, 156 Tenn. 366 (1928). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.