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 2008–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Berriosgreen2 sentences2025State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tenn. 2007). 2018State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tenn. 2007). | 5 | 5 |
McIntyre v. Traughbergreen1 sentence2012See McIntyre v. Traughber, 884 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (Koch, J.) (“The two most common exceptions involve: (1) issues of great public interest and importance to the administration of justice and (2) issues capable of repetition yet evading review.”) (citations omitted); Dockery v. Dockery, 559 S.W.2d 952 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977) (“The types of issues the courts are likely to resolve despite their mootness are: (1) questions that are likely to arise frequently; (2) questions involving the validity or construction of statutes; (3) questions relating to elections; (4) questions relating to | 1 | 1 |
Alliance for Native American Indian Rights in Tennessee, Inc. v. Nicelygreen1 sentence2008Alliance for Native American Indian Rights in Tennessee, Inc. v. Nicely, 182 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Chrisman
green
2 sentences2018State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tenn. 2007). “[T]he ‘plain view’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be.” Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5-6 , 102 S.Ct. 812 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982). 2018State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tenn. 2007). “[T]he ‘plain view’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be.” Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5-6 , 102 S.Ct. 812 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dockery v. Dockery
green
1 sentence2012See McIntyre v. Traughber, 884 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (Koch, J.) (“The two most common exceptions involve: (1) issues of great public interest and importance to the administration of justice and (2) issues capable of repetition yet evading review.”) (citations omitted); Dockery v. Dockery, 559 S.W.2d 952 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977) (“The types of issues the courts are likely to resolve despite their mootness are: (1) questions that are likely to arise frequently; (2) questions involving the validity or construction of statutes; (3) questions relating to elections; (4) questions relating to | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.