6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2017 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. Richardsongreen1 sentence2017See State v. Richardson, 875 S.W.2d 671, 674 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Salvador Parra, Also Known as Salvador Ledezma, United States of America v. Jose Alfredo Sotelo, Also Known as Ricardo Duartegreen1 sentence2013LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 11.7(d) (5th ed. 2012); see U.S. v. Parra, 2 F.3d 1058, 1065 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing cases holding that, -14- absent plain error, the court would “not consider trial evidence which undermines a district court decision rendered at a pretrial suppression hearing”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bonifacio De La Fuente, Ronald Albert Cardenas, George Sierra, Pat Vargas,augie D. Sierra, and Robert Stewartgreen1 sentence2013The Second Circuit ruled proper a trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself in a case in which he had “conducted an eleven-day hearing -28- on the wire tapping.”); and United States v. de la Fuente, 548 F.2d 528, 541 (5th Cir.) (“Merely presiding at a pretrial suppression hearing does not disqualify a judge from conducting the trial on the merits.”), cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Gannett Co. v. DePasqualegreen2 sentences1985Moreover, in an earlier case in this line, Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 , 99 S.Ct. 2898 , 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979), we considered whether this right extends to a pretrial suppression hearing. 1985Moreover, in an earlier case in this line, Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 , 99 S.Ct. 2898 , 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979), we considered whether this right extends to a pretrial suppression hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Combs v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1982Id., 408 U.S. at 226-227 , 92 S.Ct. at 2286 (citation omitted). 1982Id., 408 U.S. at 226-227 , 92 S.Ct. at 2286 (citation omitted). | 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. Patterson
green
1 sentence2013In State v. Patterson, when the defendant attempted to cite to trial testimony to support his position that the trial court erred in finding he lacked standing, this Court likewise held that “[b]ecause the motion to suppress was handled prior to trial, evidence adduced at the subsequent trial is irrelevant to our review of the trial court’s determination on the motion to suppress.” Patterson, 966 S.W.2d at 441 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Genes v. United States
green
1 sentence2013Stewart v. United States, 431 U.S. 932 , 97 S.Ct. 2640 , 53 L.Ed.2d 249 , and sub nom. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ghalayini v. United States
green
1 sentence2013Stewart v. United States, 431 U.S. 932 , 97 S.Ct. 2640 , 53 L.Ed.2d 249 , and sub nom. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1981When the apparent discrepancy in descriptions given by Ms. King surfaced during testimony in a pretrial suppression hearing, the defendant insisted that the State was guilty of violating the due process rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 1981When the apparent discrepancy in descriptions given by Ms. King surfaced during testimony in a pretrial suppression hearing, the defendant insisted that the State was guilty of violating the due process rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.