Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2015 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wiley v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See T.C.A. § 39-11-503(a); Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317, 333 (Tenn. 2006); -18- Compare T.P.I.—Crim. § 40.02 Defense: Intoxication (2014), with T.P.I.—Crim. § 42.22 Evidence of mental state (2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2014Regarding the Petitioner’s claim that he was denied his right to present an intoxication defense to show that he lacked the capacity of premeditation, “[t]he Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly guarantee a criminal defendant the right to present a defense which includes the right to present witnesses favorable to the defense.” State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 432 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2001See State v. Brooks, 909 S.W.2d 854, 859 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hayesgreen2 sentences1996In this case, the statement that the State obtains from the defendant and uses as evidence of his guilt is “I refuse to take the test because I expect it would show evidence of intoxication.” The issue was put succinctly in People v. Hayes, 64 Mich.App. 203 , 235 N.W.2d 182, 184-85 (1975), where the court held: [T]he admission of a defendant’s refusal to submit to an intoxication test would render nugatory the choice which the statute provides him.... 1996In this case, the statement that the State obtains from the defendant and uses as evidence of his guilt is “I refuse to take the test because I expect it would show evidence of intoxication.” The issue was put succinctly in People v. Hayes, 64 Mich.App. 203 , 235 N.W.2d 182, 184-85 (1975), where the court held: [T]he admission of a defendant’s refusal to submit to an intoxication test would render nugatory the choice which the statute provides him.... | 1 | 1 |
Overall v. Southern Subaru Star, Inc.green1 sentence1991(Emphasis added.) As this Court pointed out in Overall v. Southern Subaru Star, Inc., 545 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tenn.1976), in order to invoke the intoxication defense, the “employer has the burden of establishing proximate cause.” However, we also pointed out that the employer is not required to prove that “the employee’s intoxication was the sole cause.” We interpret the statute’s words “due to intoxication” to require that intoxication be a cause of the injury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. State
green
1 sentence1980Since under Hall v. State, 490 S.W.2d 495 (Tenn.1973), such a finding may properly be made from circumstantial evidence, we hold that any rational trier of fact would have found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.