United States v. Pierre Watson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding there can be no plain error to review when \neither the Supreme Court nor this [c]ourt\ had resolved the issue \beyond debate\
• holding there can be no plain error to review when “neither the Supreme Court nor this [c]ourt” had resolved the issue “beyond debate”
• noting that courts resolving the issue “saw fit to offer substantiative analyses . . . before reaching their conclusions”
• finding no plain error when “neither the Supreme Court nor this court” had resolved the issue presented and the issue was not “settled beyond debate”
• cited by McMillen and holding an error cannot be plain when “neither the Supreme Court nor this [c]ourt” has “resolved the issue ‘beyond debate’” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. McMillen
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 2019-07-10· cited 24×
• State v. Guziak
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 2021-12-15· cited 11×
• State v. Wilson
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 2020-07-15· cited 10×
• United States v. Michael Snow
  Eighth Circuit· 2020-02-10· cited 2×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Setser v. United States
  Supreme Court· 2012-03-28· cited 464×
• United States v. Poitra
  Eighth Circuit· 2011-08-10· cited 97×
• United States v. Peter L. Mayotte
  Eighth Circuit· 2001-05-10· cited 40×
• Taylor v. Sawyer
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-03-28· cited 38×
• United States v. Quintana-Gomez
  Fifth Circuit· 2008-03-25· cited 31×
• United States v. Gregory Obey
  Fourth Circuit· 2015-06-24· cited 30×
• United States v. James Douglas Smith, United States of America v. James Douglas Smith, United States of America v. James Douglas Smith
  Fourth Circuit· 2006-12-29· cited 29×
• United States v. Javier Montes-Ruiz
  Ninth Circuit· 2014-03-21· cited 18×
• United States v. Almonte-Reyes
  First Circuit· 2016-02-18· cited 11×