64 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 13 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 sentences2022We may only consider an issue as plain error when all five of the following factors are met: 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 did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and e) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 (footnotes omitted); see also Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 283 (adopting the Adkisson test for determining plain error). 2022We may only consider an issue as plain error when all five of the following factors are met: 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 did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and e) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626 , 641–42 (Tenn. Crim. | 48 | 50 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2022We may only consider an issue as plain error when all five of the following factors are met: 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 did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and e) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 (footnotes omitted); see also Smith, 24 S.W.3d at 283 (adopting the Adkisson test for determining plain error). 2022We may only consider an issue as plain error when all five of the following factors are met: 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 did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and e) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 641-42 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (footnotes omitted); see also State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 283 (Tenn. 2000) (adopting the Adkisso | 41 | 41 |
United States v. Gillam Kerleygreen2 sentences2022Furthermore, the “plain error must be of such a great magnitude that it probably changed the outcome of the trial.” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 642 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 1988)). 2022Furthermore, the “‘plain error must be of such a great magnitude that it probably changed the outcome of the trial.’” Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 642 (quoting United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 1988)). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Nelson, 275 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. Crim. 2026See State v. Nelson, 275 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Minorgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Minor, 546 S.W.3d 59, 65 (Tenn. 2018) (recognizing that the plain error doctrine “affords appellate courts discretion to review unpreserved errors and grant relief when fairness and justice demand”); see also Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
Grindstaff v. Stategreen1 sentence2018However, “the plain error rule, which would otherwise permit an appellate court to address the issue sua sponte, may not be applied in post-conviction proceedings to grounds that would otherwise be deemed either waived or previously determined.” Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208, 219 (Tenn. 2009) (citing State v. West, 19 S.W.3d 753, 756-57 (Tenn. 2000) (footnote and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Westgreen1 sentence2018However, “the plain error rule, which would otherwise permit an appellate court to address the issue sua sponte, may not be applied in post-conviction proceedings to grounds that would otherwise be deemed either waived or previously determined.” Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208, 219 (Tenn. 2009) (citing State v. West, 19 S.W.3d 753, 756-57 (Tenn. 2000) (footnote and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hestergreen1 sentence2014State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1, 56 (Tenn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnardgreen1 sentence2011We may only consider an issue as plain error when all five of the following factors are met: (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 did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Neil v. Biggersgreen1 sentence2011Therefore, the appellant argues, the trial court should have sua sponte determined whether the array met the “Biggers test.” The State argues that this court should not address the issue as plain error because all five factors required for plain error have not been established. -6- In Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-99 (1972), the United States Supreme Court established a two-part analysis to assess the validity of a pre-trial identification. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bledsoegreen1 sentence2008See Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d at 354 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carruthersgreen1 sentence2004See State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 577-78 (Tenn. 2000) (appendix). | 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 of Tennessee v. Robert Fusco
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 532-36 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gerstein v. Pugh
green
1 sentence2016Specifically, the court stated as follows: -5- When a person is arrested without a warrant, the law requires the arresting authorities to take him or her before a magistrate to “seek a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. at 125 . . . . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Schimpf
green
2 sentences2010Barlow, citing State v. Schimpf, 782 S.W.2d at 193 , argues that Dr. Lakin’s testimony “invaded the province of the jury in determining whether the defendant committed the offenses charged.” He also contends that “[c]onsideration of this issue as plain error is necessary to do substantial justice because the jury considered what can only be called ‘an expert’s mere speculation’ to resolve its most serious duty to determine whether the defendant was guilty of the charged offenses.” In Schimpf, the expert witness concluded that the child victim in that case “conform[ed] to a pattern of child sex 2010Barlow, citing State v. Schimpf, 782 S.W.2d at 193 , argues that Dr. Lakin’s testimony “invaded the province of the jury in determining whether the defendant committed the offenses charged.” He also contends that “[c]onsideration of this issue as plain error is necessary to do substantial justice because the jury considered what can only be called ‘an expert’s mere speculation’ to resolve its most serious duty to determine whether the defendant was guilty of the charged offenses.” In Schimpf, the expert witness concluded that the child victim in that case “conform[ed] to a pattern of child sex | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Faulkner
green
2 sentences2006We recently rejected a similar argument in State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48 (Tenn. 2005), also a capital murder case. 2006We recently rejected a similar argument in State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48 (Tenn.2005), also a capital murder case. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.