7 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1964–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
McFadden v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2017A scienter requirement in a statute also “narrow[s] the scope of [its] prohibition appropriate to protect the public and foster rehabilitation”). 42 and limit[s] prosecutorial discretion.” McFadden v. U.S., 135 S. Ct. 2298, 2307 (2015) (quoting Gonzales, 550 U.S. at 149-150 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Locksgreen2 sentences1964In State v. Hooker, 45 Ariz. 202, 206 , 41 P.2d 1091, 1092 (1935) it was stated that: `It is our duty * * to give to the language of all statutes a meaning that will render them constitutional if this can reasonably be done.' * * * "Accordingly, we hold that the element of scienter is implicit in the Arizona obscenity statute; that Section 13-532 must be read as if prefaced by `whoever wilfully and knowingly'; and that `knowingly' means with knowledge of the obscene nature of the materials involved." 372 P.2d at 725, 726 . 1964In State v. Hooker, 45 Ariz. 202, 206 , 41 P.2d 1091, 1092 (1935) it was stated that: ‘It is our duty * * to give to the language of all statutes a meaning that will render them constitutional if this can reasonably be done.’ * # * “Accordingly, we hold that the element of scienter is implicit in the Arizona obscenity statute; that Section 13-532 mnst be read as if prefaced by ‘whoever wilfully and knowingly’; and that ‘knowingly’ means with knowledge of the obscene nature of the materials involved.” 372 P.2d at 725, 726 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Hookergreen2 sentences1964In State v. Hooker, 45 Ariz. 202, 206 , 41 P.2d 1091, 1092 (1935) it was stated that: `It is our duty * * to give to the language of all statutes a meaning that will render them constitutional if this can reasonably be done.' * * * "Accordingly, we hold that the element of scienter is implicit in the Arizona obscenity statute; that Section 13-532 must be read as if prefaced by `whoever wilfully and knowingly'; and that `knowingly' means with knowledge of the obscene nature of the materials involved." 372 P.2d at 725, 726 . 1964In State v. Hooker, 45 Ariz. 202, 206 , 41 P.2d 1091, 1092 (1935) it was stated that: `It is our duty * * to give to the language of all statutes a meaning that will render them constitutional if this can reasonably be done.' * * * "Accordingly, we hold that the element of scienter is implicit in the Arizona obscenity statute; that Section 13-532 must be read as if prefaced by `whoever wilfully and knowingly'; and that `knowingly' means with knowledge of the obscene nature of the materials involved." 372 P.2d at 725, 726 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 726-27 . 2001Id. at 726-27 . | 4 | 1997–2004 |
Gonzales v. Carhart
green
1 sentence2017A scienter requirement in a statute also “narrow[s] the scope of [its] prohibition appropriate to protect the public and foster rehabilitation”). 42 and limit[s] prosecutorial discretion.” McFadden v. U.S., 135 S. Ct. 2298, 2307 (2015) (quoting Gonzales, 550 U.S. at 149-150 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Taylor v. State Ex Rel. Kirkpatrick
green
2 sentences1978Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). (other citations omitted). 529 S.W.2d at 695 . [[Image here]] Obviously, the statute before us complies with the scienter requirement of the First Amendment as construed in the foregoing cases. 1978Section 3(A) requires that the prohibited act of exhibition, distribution, etc., be knowingly done; and, “knowingly” is defined in Section 2(F) as meaning actual knowledge of the subject matter or actual knowledge of facts which would put a reasonable and prudent man on notice of the suspect nature of the material in question. 529 S.W.2d at 695 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Hamling v. United States
green
2 sentences1978Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). (other citations omitted). 529 S.W.2d at 695 . [[Image here]] Obviously, the statute before us complies with the scienter requirement of the First Amendment as construed in the foregoing cases. 1978Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). (other citations omitted). 529 S.W.2d at 695 . [[Image here]] Obviously, the statute before us complies with the scienter requirement of the First Amendment as construed in the foregoing cases. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.