Daniela Valderrama v. Robyn H. Hurvitz
Syllabus
Petitioner, Daniela Valderrama, filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B from the trial court's denial of a motion for recusal. Ms. Valderrama's petition for recusal appeal fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 10B, section 2.03. Due to Ms. Valderrama's failure to comply with Rule 10B, the appeal is dismissed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- upholding actions of district court identical to those here at issue: (b)(5) of that guideline. However, the general application “Section 2A4 .1(b)(7
- concluding defendant initiated contact under Edwards through a third party
- defendant’s objection to police officers’ use of deception during the execution of an arrest warrant described as “unavailing” given the existence of a valid arrest warrant
- on direct appeal, finding that officers had the right to inquire whether a suspect was reinitiating communication when her cell-mate told a deputy she wanted to talk
- “‘There is no constitutional mandate forbidding the use of deception in executing a valid arrest warrant.’” (quoting Leahy v. United States, 272 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1959))
- so stating with respect to a defendant in state custody
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.