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.
35 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2022 1 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. Killebrewgreen2 sentences2012App. P. 36(a) (stating appellate relief is generally not available when a party is “responsible for an error” or has “failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of any error”); see State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn. Crim. 2011App. P. 36(a) (stating appellate relief is generally not available when a party is “responsible for an error” or has “failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of any error”); see State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn. Crim. | 24 | 24 |
State v. Schiefelbeingreen2 sentences2020App. P. 36(a) (appellate relief is generally unavailable when a party “failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of any error.”); State v. Schieffelbein, 230 S.W.3d 88, 118 (Tenn. Crim. 2018App. P. 36(a) (appellate relief generally unavailable when party “failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of any error.”); State v. Schieffelbein, 230 S.W.3d 88, 118 (Tenn. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Simsgreen2 sentences2013App. P. 36(a); see Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1, 16 (Tenn. 2001). 2007App. P. 36(a); see State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1, 16 (Tenn. 2001). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2018App. P. 36(a) (providing that appellate relief is not available for a party who “failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of any error”); State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 518 (Tenn. 2004) (holding that the issue of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument is waived if the defendant does not make a contemporaneous objection). 2018App. P. 36(a) (providing that appellate relief is not available for a party who “failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of any error”); State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 518 (Tenn. 2004) (holding that the issue of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument is waived if the defendant does not make a contemporaneous objection). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gilleygreen1 sentence2018App. P. 36(a) (providing that appellate relief is not available for a party who “failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of any error”); see also State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 762 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cravensgreen1 sentence2014App. P. 36(a); see also, State v. Cravens, 764 S.W.2d 754, 756-57 (Tenn. 1989) (“Questions concerning the [jury] instructions are generally deemed to be waived in the absence of objection or special request, unless they contain plain error.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2014App. P. 36(a); see also, State v. Lillard, No. M2008-00575-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2951270 , at *7 (“[T]he failure to object, request a curative instruction[,] or move for a mistrial is typically grounds for waiver of an issue on appeal.”) (citing State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381, 386 (Tenn. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2014Evid. 103(a)(1) (requiring a timely objection as a prerequisite to a finding of error based on the trial court’s admission of evidence); State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279-80 (Tenn. 2000) (concluding that a defendant’s failure to object to otherwise inadmissible evidence renders the evidence admissible); State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2007P. 36(a); see State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988) (waiver applies when the defendant fails to make a contemporaneous objection); see also State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987); State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6, 11-12, 18 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). “[W]hether properly assigned or not,” however, this court may consider plain error upon the record under Rule 52(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rhodengreen1 sentence2007P. 36(a); see State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988) (waiver applies when the defendant fails to make a contemporaneous objection); see also State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987); State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6, 11-12, 18 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). “[W]hether properly assigned or not,” however, this court may consider plain error upon the record under Rule 52(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.