6 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ezell v. Stategreen2 sentences1980In Whitnel v. State, 564 S.W.2d 373, 375-376 (Tenn.Cr.App.1978), this court, speaking through Judge Daugh-trey, said: “Under the contemporaneous objection rule, ‘errors, to which no objections are made and exceptions taken in the court below, cannot be raised on appeal.’ Ezell v. State, 220 Tenn. 11 , 413 S.W.2d 678, 681 (1967). 1980In Whitnel v. State, 564 S.W.2d 373, 375-376 (Tenn.Cr.App.1978), this court, speaking through Judge Daugh-trey, said: “Under the contemporaneous objection rule, ‘errors, to which no objections are made and exceptions taken in the court below, cannot be raised on appeal.’ Ezell v. State, 220 Tenn. 11 , 413 S.W.2d 678, 681 (1967). | 2 | 2 |
Henry v. Mississippigreen2 sentences1980Both the state and federal courts have long recognized that the rule requiring contemporaneous objection to the introduction of illegal evidence clearly serves a legitimate state interest.’ Crawford v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.App. 142, 150, 469 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1971); accord, Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 448 , 85 S.Ct. 564 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); Wain wright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594, 608-09 (1977). 1980Both the state and federal courts have long recognized that the rule requiring contemporaneous objection to the introduction of illegal evidence clearly serves a legitimate state interest.’ Crawford v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.App. 142, 150, 469 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1971); accord, Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 448 , 85 S.Ct. 564 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); Wain wright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594, 608-09 (1977). | 2 | 2 |
Wainwright v. Sykesgreen2 sentences1980Both the state and federal courts have long recognized that the rule requiring contemporaneous objection to the introduction of illegal evidence clearly serves a legitimate state interest.’ Crawford v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.App. 142, 150, 469 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1971); accord, Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 448 , 85 S.Ct. 564 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); Wain wright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594, 608-09 (1977). 1980Both the state and federal courts have long recognized that the rule requiring contemporaneous objection to the introduction of illegal evidence clearly serves a legitimate state interest.’ Crawford v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.App. 142, 150, 469 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1971); accord, Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 448 , 85 S.Ct. 564 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); Wain wright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594, 608-09 (1977). | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Stategreen2 sentences1980Both the state and federal courts have long recognized that the rule requiring contemporaneous objection to the introduction of illegal evidence clearly serves a legitimate state interest.’ Crawford v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.App. 142, 150, 469 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1971); accord, Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 448 , 85 S.Ct. 564 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); Wain wright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594, 608-09 (1977). 1978Both the state and federal courts have long recognized that “the rule requiring contemporaneous objection to the introduction of illegal evidence clearly serves a legitimate state interest.” Crawford v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.App. 142, 150, 469 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1971); accord, Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 448 , 85 S.Ct. 564 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594, 608-09 (1977). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Suttongreen1 sentence1997State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820, 825 (Tenn. 1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pritchettgreen1 sentence1984State v. Pritchett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 135 (Tenn.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence1982Taylor v. State, 582 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Tenn.Cr.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Whitnel v. Stategreen1 sentence1980In Whitnel v. State, 564 S.W.2d 373, 375-376 (Tenn.Cr.App.1978), this court, speaking through Judge Daugh-trey, said: “Under the contemporaneous objection rule, ‘errors, to which no objections are made and exceptions taken in the court below, cannot be raised on appeal.’ Ezell v. State, 220 Tenn. 11 , 413 S.W.2d 678, 681 (1967). | 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. McKinney
green
1 sentence2021State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 , 618 n.11 (Tenn. 2003) (noting that failure to object constituted waiver but electing to address the issue); State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291 , 303 n.5 (Tenn. 2002) (holding failure to object or raise the issue in a motion for a new trial waived the issue, but addressing the merits). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Davidson
green
1 sentence2021State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 , 618 n.11 (Tenn. 2003) (noting that failure to object constituted waiver but electing to address the issue); State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291 , 303 n.5 (Tenn. 2002) (holding failure to object or raise the issue in a motion for a new trial waived the issue, but addressing the merits). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.