adversarial hearing in Tennessee

6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2015 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Bakergreen tenncrimapp · 1997 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2002–2004 2 sentences 2004Id. at 13 . 2002See State v. Baker, 956 S.W.2d 8, 13 (Tenn. Crim.	1	2
Parker v. Stategreen fla · 2003 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015But see Reeves v. State, 261 Ark. 384 , 548 S.W.2d 822, 823 (1977) (finding that a bond revocation hearing is not "a hearing of an adversary nature which required representation by counsel”); Parker v. State, 843 So.2d 871, 880 (Fla. 2003) (finding that in a bond revocation proceeding, the defendant is not entitled to an adversarial hearing). 7 .	1	1
State v. Westgreen tenn · 2000 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003However, the Tennessee Suprem e Court in State v. W est, 19 S.W.3d 753, 756 (Tenn. 2000 ) held that after the adoption of Rule 28 all prior laws in conflict with Rule 28 were of no further force or effect.	1	1
Hughes v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002See Hughes v. State, 56 Md.	1	1
Winston v. Leegreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002Raybin, Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure § 18.179, p. 645 (1984) (criticizing the Mabon holding as "unfortunate"); see also Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 , 763 n.6, 105 S. Ct. 1611 , 84 L. 2002Raybin, Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure § 18.179, p. 645 (1984) (criticizing the Mabon holding as "unfortunate"); see also Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 , 763 n.6, 105 S. Ct. 1611 , 84 L.	1	1
Brooks v. Stategreen ga · 1989 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w 1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
Reeves v. Stategreen ark · 1977 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015But see Reeves v. State, 261 Ark. 384 , 548 S.W.2d 822, 823 (1977) (finding that a bond revocation hearing is not "a hearing of an adversary nature which required representation by counsel”); Parker v. State, 843 So.2d 871, 880 (Fla. 2003) (finding that in a bond revocation proceeding, the defendant is not entitled to an adversarial hearing). 7 . 2015But see Reeves v. State, 261 Ark. 384 , 548 S.W.2d 822, 823 (1977) (finding that a bond revocation hearing is not "a hearing of an adversary nature which required representation by counsel”); Parker v. State, 843 So.2d 871, 880 (Fla. 2003) (finding that in a bond revocation proceeding, the defendant is not entitled to an adversarial hearing). 7 .	1	1

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Jacumin green tenn · 1989 1 sentence 2008He argues the affidavit supporting the issuance of the warrant does not state probable cause, there is no statement contained in the warrant which establishes the veracity of the informants as required by State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989), and he was entitled to an adversarial hearing when the officers sought the warrant.	1	2008–2008
State v. Floody green sd · 1992 2 sentences 1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t	1	1995–1995
State v. Touchet green la · 1994 2 sentences 1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t	1	1995–1995
State v. Michael Apelt green ariz · 1993 2 sentences 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t	1	1995–1995
McGregor v. State green oklacrimapp · 1987 1 sentence 1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w	1	1995–1995
Arnold v. Higa green haw · 1979 2 sentences 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t	1	1995–1995
State v. Peeples green ohioctapp · 1994 2 sentences 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t	1	1995–1995
People v. Loyer green michctapp · 1988 2 sentences 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t	1	1995–1995

Where else courts name it

IL 48 (1980–2025) TX 45 (1990–2024) NY 40 (1976–2026) FL 36 (1985–2025) CA 25 (1981–2025) WA 25 (1994–2024) MS 18 (1990–2022) NJ 13 (1983–2022) CT 13 (1987–2016) MO 13 (1994–2019) IN 12 (1985–2018) KY 12 (2000–2026) NM 11 (1995–2024) PA 11 (1980–2025) OH 9 (1989–2020) OR 8 (1981–2023) MD 7 (1984–2025) MI 7 (1989–2018) KS 7 (1991–2015) AL 7 (1989–2004) CO 7 (1989–2011) NV 7 (1984–2020) NC 6 (1990–2026) LA 6 (1986–2017) SC 6 (1994–2011) TN 6 (1995–2015) GA 6 (1970–2025) DC 5 (1992–2016) AK 5 (1995–2025) AZ 5 (1984–2018) IA 4 (2002–2023) VT 4 (1994–2022) MN 4 (1989–2017) OK 3 (1990–2013) AR 3 (2004–2019) SD 3 (1996–1996) MT 2 (1998–2025) NE 2 (1998–2017) WV 2 (1980–2002) DE 2 (2020–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check