categorical bar in Tennessee

2017See, e.g., Humphreys, 70 S.W.3d at 761 .

2016See, e.g., Humphreys, 70 S.W.3d at 761 .

2016Emphasizing ―the great difficulty . . . of distinguishing at this early age between ‗the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,‘‖ id. (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68 (2010)), the Court concluded that the sentencer must ―take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison,‖ Miller, 543 U.S. at 2469 .

2016Id. at 61, 63 .

2018See, e.g. , Henderson , 568 U.S. at 272 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 (explaining that "[e]ven where a new rule of law is at issue," the federal circuit courts of appeal may only "overlook a failure to object" if all of the elements of the plain error doctrine are satisfied); Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 243, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (explaining that "retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief" and stating that Griffith merely lifted "what would otherwise be a categorical

2018See, e.g. , Henderson , 568 U.S. at 272 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 (explaining that "[e]ven where a new rule of law is at issue," the federal circuit courts of appeal may only "overlook a failure to object" if all of the elements of the plain error doctrine are satisfied); Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 243, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (explaining that "retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief" and stating that Griffith merely lifted "what would otherwise be a categorical

2018See, e.g. , Henderson , 568 U.S. at 272 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 (explaining that "[e]ven where a new rule of law is at issue," the federal circuit courts of appeal may only "overlook a failure to object" if all of the elements of the plain error doctrine are satisfied); Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 243, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (explaining that "retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief" and stating that Griffith merely lifted "what would otherwise be a categorical

2018See, e.g. , Henderson , 568 U.S. at 272 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 (explaining that "[e]ven where a new rule of law is at issue," the federal circuit courts of appeal may only "overlook a failure to object" if all of the elements of the plain error doctrine are satisfied); Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 243, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (explaining that "retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief" and stating that Griffith merely lifted "what would otherwise be a categorical

2018See, e.g. , Henderson , 568 U.S. at 272 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 (explaining that "[e]ven where a new rule of law is at issue," the federal circuit courts of appeal may only "overlook a failure to object" if all of the elements of the plain error doctrine are satisfied); Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 243, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (explaining that "retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief" and stating that Griffith merely lifted "what would otherwise be a categorical

2018See, e.g. , Henderson , 568 U.S. at 272 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 (explaining that "[e]ven where a new rule of law is at issue," the federal circuit courts of appeal may only "overlook a failure to object" if all of the elements of the plain error doctrine are satisfied); Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 243, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (explaining that "retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief" and stating that Griffith merely lifted "what would otherwise be a categorical

2018See, e.g., Henderson, 568 U.S. at 272 (explaining that “[e]ven where a new rule of law is at issue,” the federal circuit courts of appeal may only “overlook a failure to object” if all of the elements of the plain error doctrine are satisfied); Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 243 (2011) (explaining that “retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief” and stating that Griffith merely lifted “what would otherwise be a categorical bar to obtaining redress for the government’s violatio

2018See, e.g. , Henderson , 568 U.S. at 272 , 133 S.Ct. 1121 (explaining that "[e]ven where a new rule of law is at issue," the federal circuit courts of appeal may only "overlook a failure to object" if all of the elements of the plain error doctrine are satisfied); Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 243, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (explaining that "retroactivity jurisprudence is concerned with whether, as a categorical matter, a new rule is available on direct review as a potential ground for relief" and stating that Griffith merely lifted "what would otherwise be a categorical

2017In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that its rule in Miller was “a substantive rule of constitutional law” that required retroactive application. 136 S.Ct. 718, 736 (2016).

2016Emphasizing ―the great difficulty . . . of distinguishing at this early age between ‗the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,‘‖ id. (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68 (2010)), the Court concluded that the sentencer must ―take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison,‖ Miller, 543 U.S. at 2469 .

2016Emphasizing ―the great difficulty . . . of distinguishing at this early age between ‗the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,‘‖ id. (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68 (2010)), the Court concluded that the sentencer must ―take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison,‖ Miller, 543 U.S. at 2469 .

2010See, e.g., State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 642 (R.I.2006) (discussing a "casual remark to an acquaintance” and citing cases variously involving friends, co-workers, and co-conspirators); State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103 , 644 S.E.2d 684, 689-90 (2007) (collecting cases holding that spontaneous utterances by small children to parents or other close relatives are nontestimonial); cf. Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 787 (2008) (treating statements made to nonofficials as "presumptively nontestimonial,” although the presumption is rebuttable). 20 .

2010See, e.g., State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 642 (R.I.2006) (discussing a "casual remark to an acquaintance” and citing cases variously involving friends, co-workers, and co-conspirators); State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103 , 644 S.E.2d 684, 689-90 (2007) (collecting cases holding that spontaneous utterances by small children to parents or other close relatives are nontestimonial); cf. Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 787 (2008) (treating statements made to nonofficials as "presumptively nontestimonial,” although the presumption is rebuttable). 20 .

2010See, e.g., State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 642 (R.I.2006) (discussing a "casual remark to an acquaintance” and citing cases variously involving friends, co-workers, and co-conspirators); State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103 , 644 S.E.2d 684, 689-90 (2007) (collecting cases holding that spontaneous utterances by small children to parents or other close relatives are nontestimonial); cf. Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 787 (2008) (treating statements made to nonofficials as "presumptively nontestimonial,” although the presumption is rebuttable). 20 .

2010See, e.g., State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 642 (R.I.2006) (discussing a "casual remark to an acquaintance” and citing cases variously involving friends, co-workers, and co-conspirators); State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103 , 644 S.E.2d 684, 689-90 (2007) (collecting cases holding that spontaneous utterances by small children to parents or other close relatives are nontestimonial); cf. Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 787 (2008) (treating statements made to nonofficials as "presumptively nontestimonial,” although the presumption is rebuttable). 20 .

2010See, e.g., State v. Feliciano, 901 A.2d 631, 642 (R.I.2006) (discussing a "casual remark to an acquaintance” and citing cases variously involving friends, co-workers, and co-conspirators); State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103 , 644 S.E.2d 684, 689-90 (2007) (collecting cases holding that spontaneous utterances by small children to parents or other close relatives are nontestimonial); cf. Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 787 (2008) (treating statements made to nonofficials as "presumptively nontestimonial,” although the presumption is rebuttable). 20 .

1985In a case of first impression the Idaho Supreme Court was “unwilling to adopt a categorical rule that universally prohibits parent-child actions on the basis of a total and absolute immunity,” but it held no cause of action exists “for alleged negligent supervision.” Pedigo v. Rowley, 101 Idaho 201 , 610 P.2d 560, 564 (1980) (failure to supervise daughter who was floating on an air mattress on a lake and was struck by a speedboat).

1985In a case of first impression the Idaho Supreme Court was “unwilling to adopt a categorical rule that universally prohibits parent-child actions on the basis of a total and absolute immunity,” but it held no cause of action exists “for alleged negligent supervision.” Pedigo v. Rowley, 101 Idaho 201 , 610 P.2d 560, 564 (1980) (failure to supervise daughter who was floating on an air mattress on a lake and was struck by a speedboat).