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 3 courts 1991–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Warwick v. Gluckgreen2 sentences2000See also Warwick v. Gluck, 12 Kan.App.2d 563 , 751 P.2d 1042, 1045 (1988) (“custody is in effect an adjudication of a child’s status, which falls under the status exception of Shaffer v. Heitner”). 2000See also Warwick v. Gluck, 12 Kan.App.2d 563 , 751 P.2d 1042, 1045 (1988) (“custody is in effect an adjudication of a child’s status, which falls under the status exception of Shaffer v. Heitner”). | 2 | 2 |
Gibson v. Trantgreen1 sentence2025Mullins, 294 S.W.3d at 535 (citing Gibson v. Trant, 58 S.W.3d 103, 118 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boughgreen1 sentence2024“An accomplice is one who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent participates with the principal offender in the commission of a crime.” State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tenn. 2004) (citing State v. Lewis, 36 S.W.3d 88, 94 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2024“An accomplice is one who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent participates with the principal offender in the commission of a crime.” State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tenn. 2004) (citing State v. Lewis, 36 S.W.3d 88, 94 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Clapp v. Stategreen1 sentence2024After we decide the status of this rule, we will address whether the evidence is sufficient to support Ms. Turner’s first-degree murder convictions in this case. i. The Accomplice-Corroboration Rule It has long been a common law rule in our state that “evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction” when the conviction is “solely based upon the uncorroborated testimony of one or more accomplices.” State v. Collier, 411 S.W.3d 886, 894 (Tenn. 2013) (citing State v. Little, 402 S.W.3d 202 , 211–12 (Tenn. 2013)); see also Clapp v. State, 30 S.W. 214 , 216–17 (Tenn. 1895). | 1 | 1 |
STATE of Tennessee v. DeWayne COLLIER AKA Patrick Colliergreen1 sentence2024After we decide the status of this rule, we will address whether the evidence is sufficient to support Ms. Turner’s first-degree murder convictions in this case. i. The Accomplice-Corroboration Rule It has long been a common law rule in our state that “evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction” when the conviction is “solely based upon the uncorroborated testimony of one or more accomplices.” State v. Collier, 411 S.W.3d 886, 894 (Tenn. 2013) (citing State v. Little, 402 S.W.3d 202 , 211–12 (Tenn. 2013)); see also Clapp v. State, 30 S.W. 214 , 216–17 (Tenn. 1895). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mullins v. State
green
1 sentence2025Mullins, 294 S.W.3d at 535 (citing Gibson v. Trant, 58 S.W.3d 103, 118 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State of Tennessee v. Jereme Dannuel Little
green
1 sentence2024After we decide the status of this rule, we will address whether the evidence is sufficient to support Ms. Turner’s first-degree murder convictions in this case. i. The Accomplice-Corroboration Rule It has long been a common law rule in our state that “evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction” when the conviction is “solely based upon the uncorroborated testimony of one or more accomplices.” State v. Collier, 411 S.W.3d 886, 894 (Tenn. 2013) (citing State v. Little, 402 S.W.3d 202 , 211–12 (Tenn. 2013)); see also Clapp v. State, 30 S.W. 214 , 216–17 (Tenn. 1895). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Vasques
green
1 sentence2015The coram nobis court will then determine “whether a reasonable basis exists for concluding that had the evidence been presented at trial, the result of the proceedings might have been different.” Id. at 526 . 1 This hearing is discussed in the coram nobis court‟s order of dismissal; however, no transcript of the status hearing is in the record on appeal. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jones v. Williamson
green
1 sentence1991Jones v. Williamson, 45 Tenn. (5 Cold.) 371 , 379-80 (1868); C. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.