9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Watts v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024See Young v. United States, 284 A.2d 671, 673 (D.C. 1971) (explaining that “in order for us to reverse the trial court [for its failure to suppress evidence sua sponte], we would have to hold that the way in which the police discovered the incriminating evidence was so patently illegal that it was pla[i]n error on the part of that court to fail to notice the inadmissibility of the proffered items”); Watts, 362 A.2d at 709 (“In order to discourage the intentional withholding of objections by defense counsel, errors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the p 2024See Young v. United States, 284 A.2d 671, 673 (D.C. 1971) (explaining that “in order for us to reverse the trial court [for its failure to suppress evidence sua sponte], we would have to hold that the way in which the police discovered the incriminating evidence was so patently illegal that it was pla[i]n error on the part of that court to fail to notice the inadmissibility of the proffered items”); Watts, 362 A.2d at 709 (“In order to discourage the intentional withholding of objections by defense counsel, errors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the p | 9 | 9 |
Adams v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024See Young v. United States, 284 A.2d 671, 673 (D.C. 1971) (explaining that “in order for us to reverse the trial court [for its failure to suppress evidence sua sponte], we would have to hold that the way in which the police discovered the incriminating evidence was so patently illegal that it was pla[i]n error on the part of that court to fail to notice the inadmissibility of the proffered items”); Watts, 362 A.2d at 709 (“In order to discourage the intentional withholding of objections by defense counsel, errors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the p 2024See Young v. United States, 284 A.2d 671, 673 (D.C. 1971) (explaining that “in order for us to reverse the trial court [for its failure to suppress evidence sua sponte], we would have to hold that the way in which the police discovered the incriminating evidence was so patently illegal that it was pla[i]n error on the part of that court to fail to notice the inadmissibility of the proffered items”); Watts, 362 A.2d at 709 (“In order to discourage the intentional withholding of objections by defense counsel, errors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the p | 2 | 3 |
Brown v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024See Young v. United States, 284 A.2d 671, 673 (D.C. 1971) (explaining that “in order for us to reverse the trial court [for its failure to suppress evidence sua sponte], we would have to hold that the way in which the police discovered the incriminating evidence was so patently illegal that it was pla[i]n error on the part of that court to fail to notice the inadmissibility of the proffered items”); Watts, 362 A.2d at 709 (“In order to discourage the intentional withholding of objections by defense counsel, errors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the p 2024See Young v. United States, 284 A.2d 671, 673 (D.C. 1971) (explaining that “in order for us to reverse the trial court [for its failure to suppress evidence sua sponte], we would have to hold that the way in which the police discovered the incriminating evidence was so patently illegal that it was pla[i]n error on the part of that court to fail to notice the inadmissibility of the proffered items”); Watts, 362 A.2d at 709 (“In order to discourage the intentional withholding of objections by defense counsel, errors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the p | 2 | 2 |
Young v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024See Young v. United States, 284 A.2d 671, 673 (D.C. 1971) (explaining that “in order for us to reverse the trial court [for its failure to suppress evidence sua sponte], we would have to hold that the way in which the police discovered the incriminating evidence was so patently illegal that it was pla[i]n error on the part of that court to fail to notice the inadmissibility of the proffered items”); Watts, 362 A.2d at 709 (“In order to discourage the intentional withholding of objections by defense counsel, errors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the p 2024See Young v. United States, 284 A.2d 671, 673 (D.C. 1971) (explaining that “in order for us to reverse the trial court [for its failure to suppress evidence sua sponte], we would have to hold that the way in which the police discovered the incriminating evidence was so patently illegal that it was pla[i]n error on the part of that court to fail to notice the inadmissibility of the proffered items”); Watts, 362 A.2d at 709 (“In order to discourage the intentional withholding of objections by defense counsel, errors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the p | 2 | 2 |
Baker v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2005“Plain error review permits us to grant a remedy where (1) there is error, (2) the error is plain, meaning ‘clear’ or ‘obvious,’ and (3) the error affected substantial rights.” Baker v. United States, 867 A.2d 988, 1003 (D.C.2005) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Olano
green
2 sentences2005“Plain error review permits us to grant a remedy where (1) there is error, (2) the error is plain, meaning ‘clear’ or ‘obvious,’ and (3) the error affected substantial rights.” Baker v. United States, 867 A.2d 988, 1003 (D.C.2005) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). 2005“Plain error review permits us to grant a remedy where (1) there is error, (2) the error is plain, meaning ‘clear’ or ‘obvious,’ and (3) the error affected substantial rights.” Baker v. United States, 867 A.2d 988, 1003 (D.C.2005) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bunter v. United States
green
1 sentence1978Watts v. United States, supra; Adams v. United States, D.C.App., 302 A.2d 232 (1973); Bunter v. United States, D.C.App., 245 A.2d 839 (1968). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.