7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2016 0 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. Smithgreen2 sentences2010In State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282-83 (Tenn. 2000), our supreme court adopted the standard announced by this court in Adkisson. 2008In State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282-83 (Tenn.2000), our supreme court adopted the standard announced by this court in Adkisson . | 4 | 4 |
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2010“Rule 52(b) leaves the decision to correct the forfeited error within the sound discretion of the [reviewing court], and the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 732 , 113 S. Ct. at 1776 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original). 2010“Rule 52(b) leaves the decision to correct the forfeited error within the sound discretion of the [reviewing court], and the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 732 , 113 S. Ct. at 1776 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Ganngreen1 sentence2013“Rule 52(b) [of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure] leaves the decision to correct the forfeited error within the sound discretion of the court of appeals, and the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” State v. Gann, 251 S.W.3d 446, 459 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Molina-Martinez v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Once these three conditions have been met, the court of appeals should exercise its discretion to correct the forfeited error if the error " 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Molina-Martinez v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1343 , 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016) (citations omitted). 11 . 2016Once these three conditions have been met, the court of appeals should exercise its discretion to correct the forfeited error if the error " 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Molina-Martinez v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1343 , 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016) (citations omitted). 11 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. David Wayne Monroe
green
1 sentence2004That discretion may be exercised only if the error also ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal cites omitted). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.