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 2000–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pricegreen2 sentences2003See Price, 46 S.W.3d at 802 . 2003In fact, Price merely noted that divorce proceedings were pending and concluded that “there was evidence that the defendant’s marriage was already failing, whether his wife testified at this trial or not.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632, 661-62 (Tenn.2005) (refusing to accept the State’s concession that the defendants’ sentences were imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment); State v. Mitchell, 137 S.W.3d 630, 639-40 (Tenn.Crim.App.2003) (declining to accept the State’s concession that the evidence supported the trial court’s application of one of the elements of the marital communications privilege). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gomezgreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632, 661-62 (Tenn.2005) (refusing to accept the State’s concession that the defendants’ sentences were imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment); State v. Mitchell, 137 S.W.3d 630, 639-40 (Tenn.Crim.App.2003) (declining to accept the State’s concession that the evidence supported the trial court’s application of one of the elements of the marital communications privilege). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Adams v. State, 563 S.W.2d 804, 808 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978). 1 To be privileged, a communication must be confidential in nature. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCormick v. State
green
2 sentences2003Shortly thereafter, in McCormick v. State, 135 Tenn. 218 , 186 S.W. 95 (1916), a criminal defendant challenged the eonstitu- tionality of the statute in an attempt to keep his spouse from being called as witness against him. 2000In our view, an expansion of the marital communications privilege to this extent would do little to advance the privilege's goal of fostering "the sacredness of the home and the peace of families." See McCormick v. State, 135 Tenn. 218 , 186 S.W. 95 , 97 (1916). | 2 | 2000–2003 |
Wolfle v. United States
green
2 sentences2003L.Rev. 137 (2001). [2] The Court, in discussing critical commentary that suggested that the confidential marital communications privilege should be substituted in place of the spousal disqualification rule, expressly stated: This Court recognized just such a confidential marital communications privilege in Wolfle v. United States, 291 U.S. 7 [ 54 S.Ct. 279 , 78 L.Ed. 617 ] (1934), and in Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332 [ 71 S.Ct. 301 , 95 L.Ed. 306 ] (1951). 2003L.Rev. 137 (2001). [2] The Court, in discussing critical commentary that suggested that the confidential marital communications privilege should be substituted in place of the spousal disqualification rule, expressly stated: This Court recognized just such a confidential marital communications privilege in Wolfle v. United States, 291 U.S. 7 [ 54 S.Ct. 279 , 78 L.Ed. 617 ] (1934), and in Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332 [ 71 S.Ct. 301 , 95 L.Ed. 306 ] (1951). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Blau v. United States
green
2 sentences2003L.Rev. 137 (2001). [2] The Court, in discussing critical commentary that suggested that the confidential marital communications privilege should be substituted in place of the spousal disqualification rule, expressly stated: This Court recognized just such a confidential marital communications privilege in Wolfle v. United States, 291 U.S. 7 [ 54 S.Ct. 279 , 78 L.Ed. 617 ] (1934), and in Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332 [ 71 S.Ct. 301 , 95 L.Ed. 306 ] (1951). 2003L.Rev. 137 (2001). [2] The Court, in discussing critical commentary that suggested that the confidential marital communications privilege should be substituted in place of the spousal disqualification rule, expressly stated: This Court recognized just such a confidential marital communications privilege in Wolfle v. United States, 291 U.S. 7 [ 54 S.Ct. 279 , 78 L.Ed. 617 ] (1934), and in Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332 [ 71 S.Ct. 301 , 95 L.Ed. 306 ] (1951). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Hurley
green
1 sentence2000Hurley, 876 S.W.2d at 64 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.