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.
7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020Trial courts have the discretion to determine the circumstances when summary punishment is essential, which “certainly include ‘acts threatening the judge or disrupting a hearing or obstructing court proceedings,’ or other ‘unusual circumstances . . . where instant action is necessary to protect the judicial institution itself.’” Turner, 914 S.W.2d at 957 (quoting Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162, 164 (1965)). 2011However, exceptional circumstances “would certainly include acts threatening the judge or disrupting a hearing or obstructing court proceedings.” Id. (quoting Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162, 164 (1965)) (quotation marks omitted). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Turnergreen2 sentences2026“Exceptional circumstances justifying summary contempt ‘certainly include acts threatening the judge or disrupting a hearing or obstructing court proceedings, or other unusual situations . . . where instant action is necessary to protect the judicial institution itself.” In re Brown, 470 S.W.3d at 446 (quoting Turner, 914 S.W.2d at 957 ). 2020Trial courts have the discretion to determine the circumstances when summary punishment is essential, which “certainly include ‘acts threatening the judge or disrupting a hearing or obstructing court proceedings,’ or other ‘unusual circumstances . . . where instant action is necessary to protect the judicial institution itself.’” Turner, 914 S.W.2d at 957 (quoting Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162, 164 (1965)). | 1 | 4 |
United States v. Anthony J. Pinagreen1 sentence1995Id. at 1359 ; see also United States v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1, 14 (1st Cir.1988); In re Holloway, 995 F.2d 1080, 1087 (D.C.Cir.1933), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1537 , 128 L.Ed.2d 190 (1994); 17 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
In Re James R. Hollowaygreen1 sentence1995Id. at 1359 ; see also United States v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1, 14 (1st Cir.1988); In re Holloway, 995 F.2d 1080, 1087 (D.C.Cir.1933), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1537 , 128 L.Ed.2d 190 (1994); 17 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Joseph Brown
green
1 sentence2026“Exceptional circumstances justifying summary contempt ‘certainly include acts threatening the judge or disrupting a hearing or obstructing court proceedings, or other unusual situations . . . where instant action is necessary to protect the judicial institution itself.” In re Brown, 470 S.W.3d at 446 (quoting Turner, 914 S.W.2d at 957 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Vierrether v. United States
green
2 sentences1995Id. at 1359 ; see also United States v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1, 14 (1st Cir.1988); In re Holloway, 995 F.2d 1080, 1087 (D.C.Cir.1933), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1537 , 128 L.Ed.2d 190 (1994); 17 C.J.S. 1995Id. at 1359 ; see also United States v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1, 14 (1st Cir.1988); In re Holloway, 995 F.2d 1080, 1087 (D.C.Cir.1933), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1537 , 128 L.Ed.2d 190 (1994); 17 C.J.S. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In Re Robert T. Gustafson, Esquire
green
2 sentences1995It would certainly include “acts threatening the judge or disrupting a hearing or obstructing court proceedings,” Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. at 164 , 86 S.Ct. at 354 , or other “unusual situations ... where instant action is necessary to protect the judicial institution itself.” Id. 10 To provide further guidance in this regard, the court in In re Gustafson, supra, *958 considered such factors as the reasonably expected reactions of those in the courtroom, the manner in which the remarks are delivered, the delay in the proceedings caused by a disrespectful outburst, and the failure to h 1995Id. at 1359 ; see also United States v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1, 14 (1st Cir.1988); In re Holloway, 995 F.2d 1080, 1087 (D.C.Cir.1933), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1537 , 128 L.Ed.2d 190 (1994); 17 C.J.S. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.