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 1997–2026 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. Woodgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342, 346 (Tenn. 1996) (recognizing that “the length of the delay is the triggering mechanism that will necessitate the consideration of the other three factors”). 2025See State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342, 346 (Tenn. 1996) (recognizing that “the length of the delay is the triggering mechanism that will necessitate the consideration of the other three factors”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bakergreen1 sentence2019State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342, 347 (Tenn. 1996) (utilizing the balancing analysis to determine that a thirteen-year delay in trial did not violate the defendant’s right to a speedy trial). “‘Until there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance.’” State v. Baker, 614 S.W.2d 352, 355 (Tenn. 1981) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Utleygreen1 sentence2018See Allen, 505 S.W.2d at 717 (considering whether the delay of two and one-half years between issuance of the probation violation warrant and the probation revocation hearing denied the defendant his right to a speedy trial); State v. Utley, 956 S.W.2d 489, 494 (Tenn. 1997) (providing that a delay approaching one year triggers Barker v. Wingo analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Allen, 505 S.W.2d at 717 (considering whether the delay of two and one-half years between issuance of the probation violation warrant and the probation revocation hearing denied the defendant his right to a speedy trial); State v. Utley, 956 S.W.2d 489, 494 (Tenn. 1997) (providing that a delay approaching one year triggers Barker v. Wingo analysis). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2019State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342, 347 (Tenn. 1996) (utilizing the balancing analysis to determine that a thirteen-year delay in trial did not violate the defendant’s right to a speedy trial). “‘Until there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance.’” State v. Baker, 614 S.W.2d 352, 355 (Tenn. 1981) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 ). 2011The next factor to be considered is the reason or reasons for the delay, which should be “neutral.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 531 . | 2 | 2011–2019 |
State v. Kolb
green
2 sentences1997Kolb, 755 S.W.2d at 474 . 1997Kolb, 755 S.W.2d at 474 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
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.