6 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charlie Lee Ingram v. Rebecca and Randy Wassongreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Ingram, 379 S.W.3d at 242 (affirming the trial court’s refusal to find that an alternate mode of access advocated by the servient estate owners relieved the necessity of the dominant estate to benefit from an implied easement); Rhoades v. Taylor, No. M2001- 00643-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 724672 at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2003) (noting that it was not necessary for the defendants to build another driveway to access their land from a public road where the evidence showed sufficient use of the plaintiffs’ property to find an implied easement). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huddlestongreen2 sentences2004In State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tenn. 1996), an unlawful detention case involving a defendant’s failure to be given a prompt probable cause determination following a warrantless arrest, our supreme court observed that “the exclusionary rule [under which evidence obtained as the result of a Fourth Amendment violation is suppressed] was designed to protect Fourth Amendment guarantees by deterring lawless searches, seizures, and arrests.” The court further observed, however, that the United States Supreme Court has limited the application of the exclusionary rule to those situations 2004In State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tenn. 1996), an unlawful detention case involving a defendant’s failure to be given a prompt probable cause determination following a warrantless arrest, our supreme court observed that “the exclusionary rule [under which evidence obtained as the result of a Fourth Amendment violation is suppressed] was designed to protect Fourth Amendment guarantees by deterring lawless searches, seizures, and arrests.” The court further observed, however, that the United States Supreme Court has limited the application of the exclusionary rule to those situations | 1 | 1 |
State v. Choategreen1 sentence2001See State v. Choate , 667 S.W.2d 111 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hannah v. Ike Topper Structural Steel Co.green2 sentences1993See Hannah, 28 O.O.2d at 224-25 , 120 Ohio App. at 46-48 , 201 N.E.2d at 65 . 1993See Hannah, 28 O.O.2d at 224-25 , 120 Ohio App. at 46-48 , 201 N.E.2d at 65 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2004In State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tenn. 1996), an unlawful detention case involving a defendant’s failure to be given a prompt probable cause determination following a warrantless arrest, our supreme court observed that “the exclusionary rule [under which evidence obtained as the result of a Fourth Amendment violation is suppressed] was designed to protect Fourth Amendment guarantees by deterring lawless searches, seizures, and arrests.” The court further observed, however, that the United States Supreme Court has limited the application of the exclusionary rule to those situations 2004In State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 674 (Tenn. 1996), an unlawful detention case involving a defendant’s failure to be given a prompt probable cause determination following a warrantless arrest, our supreme court observed that “the exclusionary rule [under which evidence obtained as the result of a Fourth Amendment violation is suppressed] was designed to protect Fourth Amendment guarantees by deterring lawless searches, seizures, and arrests.” The court further observed, however, that the United States Supreme Court has limited the application of the exclusionary rule to those situations | 2 | 1996–2004 |
Brown v. Municipal Court
green
1 sentence2001Court, 86 Cal. App. 3d 357 (1978))); see also Mark Bateman, 1997 WL 779122 , at *4 (citing same and 1 The de fendant testified th at he did no t take the one-le gged stand test and passe d all others. 2 The defendan t testified that the officer initially told him that the cost of the test was $230.00 and that after the defendant indicated that he did not have enou gh cash or a credit card to pay for the test, the officer told him that he was unsur e of the cost. 3 Moreover, a police officer is not required to transport an arrestee to a hospital for such testing. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Conrad v. Suhr
green
1 sentence1985See, Davis, supra; Conrad, supra. Other jurisdictions, however, hold that it is the indemnitee’s actual wrongdoing rather than allegations of wrongdoing that should determine the in-demnitee’s rights and that a mere allegation of active negligence should not deprive a potential indemnitee of its indemnification, including attorney’s fees. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.