Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 60 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Neal.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Neal Anchor | green | “to preserve error, an objection must be sufficiently specific to alert the district court to the nature of the alleged error and to provide an opportunity for correction.” | 41 |
| 2 | United States v. Neal | green | “sufficiently specific to alert the district court to the nature of the alleged error and to provide an opportunity for correction.” | 11 |
| 3 | United States v. Medina-Anicacio | green | “when a defendant objects to his sentence on grounds different from those raised on appeal, we review the new arguments raised on appeal for plain error only.” | 8 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.