6 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2026 3 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. Dycusgreen2 sentences2023This factor weighs neutrally where nothing “in the record reflects anything of note regarding the [d]efendant’s mental and physical health.” State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918, 931 (Tenn. 2015). 2017See id. at 931 (concluding that when there was nothing of note in the defendant’s physical or mental health, the factor was neutral). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Trottergreen1 sentence2022State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651, 654-55 (Tenn. 2006). | 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. King
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 327 . - 37 - This presumption does not apply when the trial court fails to identify and weigh the relevant diversion factors. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Washington
green
1 sentence2011In our review on appeal we held that, “[a]lthough the trial court did not elaborate extensively on all of the relevant diversion factors or explicitly state the weight it was applying to each factor, its findings implicitly show the weight it applied and evince a knowledge of the factors it was to consider.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Parker
green
1 sentence2010If the trial court refused to grant judicial diversion, it should state in the record “the specific reasons for its determinations.” Parker, 932 S.W.2d at 958-59 . -21- The trial court based its denial of diversion on the inaccurate TBI application for certification of eligibility and therefore did not explicitly weigh the diversion factors. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.