16 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2022 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. Adkissongreen2 sentences2016Adkisson held that the following five factors must be present for a finding of plain error: (a) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (b) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (c) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (d) the accused [must not have waived] the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error [must be] ―necessary to do substantial justice.‖ 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 (footnotes omitted). 2015Adkisson held that the following five factors must be present for a finding of plain error: (a) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (b) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (c) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (d) the accused [must not have waived] the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error [must be] “necessary to do substantial justice.” 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 (footnotes omitted). | 7 | 8 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2022See Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 282 . 2006App. 1979)); see also State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282 (Tenn. 2000) (listing as the first of five requirements for a finding of plain error that “the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court”) (citation omitted). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2013Our supreme court has upheld the long established rule that “plain error review places on the defendant the burden of persuasion,” and that “[t]he substantive standards for plain error review are difficult to satisfy.” State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632, 646 (Tenn. 2005). 2006Our supreme court has recently upheld the long established rule that “plain error review places on the defendant the burden of persuasion,” and that “[t]he substantive standards for plain error review are difficult to satisfy.” State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632, 646 (Tenn. 2005). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Terrygreen1 sentence2016Id. at 372 (footnote 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. Page
green
1 sentence2016Page, 184 S.W.3d at 230 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.