6 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2025 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. Gregorygreen1 sentence2025Furthermore, a laboratory report concerning a defendant’s drug test may be admitted as evidence in probation revocation proceedings, even if the laboratory technician who conducted the test is not available to testify, provided the report is accompanied by an affidavit that includes “(1) the identity of the person who certified the drug test; (2) a statement of this person’s qualifications; (3) a specific description of the method of testing; (4) a statement that the method of testing was the most accurate test for this particular drug; (5) a certification that the test results were reliable a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Darby v. Superior Supply Company
green
2 sentences2004In the interest of providing a complete and accurate analysis, we briefly distinguish the case of Darby v. Superior Supply Co., 224 Tenn. 540 , 458 S.W.2d 423 (1970), a Tennessee Supreme Court decision relied upon by Selvey in his argument to this Court. 2004In the interest of providing a complete and accurate analysis, we briefly distinguish the case of Darby v. Superior Supply Co., 224 Tenn. 540 , 458 S.W.2d 423 (1970), a Tennessee Supreme Court decision relied upon by Selvey in his argument to this Court. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Wade
green
1 sentence2017Id. at (c)(1)(A)-(G). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Page
green
2 sentences2006Rogers argues that the instruction defining "knowingly" at the guilt phase [13] did not cure this omission because it incorrectly defined "knowingly" and allowed the jury to base its finding on awareness of conduct alone and therefore violated his right to a complete and accurate instruction on the law under State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781 (Tenn. Crim.App.2002). 2006Rogers argues that the instruction defining “knowingly” at the guilt phase 13 did not cure this omission because it incorrectly defined “knowingly” and allowed the jury to base its finding on awareness of conduct alone and therefore violated his right to a complete and accurate instruction on the law under State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781 (Tenn.Crim.App.2002). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Cook
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 327 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.