41 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico 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. Monteleonegreen2 sentences2016See State v. Monteleone, 2005-NMCA-129, ¶ 16 , 138 N.M. 544 , 123 P.3d 777 (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars the admission of legally obtained evidence derived from past police illegalities.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {21} At the close of the State’s case, Defendant’s trial counsel moved for directed verdicts on Defendant’s possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia charges. 2016See State v. Monteleone, 2005-NMCA-129, ¶ 16 , 138 N.M. 544 , 123 P.3d 777 (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars the admission of legally obtained evidence derived from past police illegalities.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {21} At the close of the State’s case, Defendant’s trial counsel moved for directed verdicts on Defendant’s possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia charges. | 6 | 14 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014It is likewise settled law that evidence “discovered as a result of the exploitation of an illegal seizure must be suppressed unless it has been purged of its primary taint.” Id. ¶ 25 (citing Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046 , ¶¶ 14, 23, for its recitation of the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” set forth in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). 2014It is likewise settled law that evidence “discovered as a result of the exploitation of an illegal seizure must be suppressed unless it has been purged of its primary taint.” Id. ¶ 25 (citing Garcia, 2009- NMSC-046, ¶¶ 14, 23, for its recitation of the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” set forth in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). | 4 | 9 |
State v. Ingramgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Ingram, 1998-NMCA-177, ¶ 9 , 126 N.M. 426 , 970 P.2d 1151 (“Evidence which is obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search or seizure may be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {30} Because we disagree with the district court’s determination, we now consider whether Officer Merrell obtained Defendant’s consent “by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint” of the illegal helicopter surveillance of Defendant’s property. 2014See State v. Ingram, 1998-NMCA-177, ¶ 9 , 126 N.M. 426 , 970 P.2d 1151 (“Evidence which is obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search or seizure may be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {30} Because we disagree with the district court’s determination, we now consider whether Officer Merrell obtained Defendant’s consent “by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint” of the illegal helicopter surveillance of Defendant’s property. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Bedollagreen2 sentences2005See State v. Jutte, 1998-NMCA-150, ¶ 21 , 126 N.M. 244 , 968 P.2d 334 (noting that we observed in Bedolla, 111 N.M. at 455 , 806 P.2d at 595 , that under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), the Fifth Amendment voluntariness test is separate from the Fourth Amendment fruit of the poisonous tree analysis). 2005See State v. Jutte, 1998-NMCA-150, ¶ 21 , 126 N.M. 244 , 968 P.2d 334 (noting that we observed in Bedolla, 111 N.M. at 455 , 806 P.2d at 595 , that under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), the Fifth Amendment voluntariness test is separate from the Fourth Amendment fruit of the poisonous tree analysis). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2014See State v. Montoya, 2008-NMSC-043, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 458 , 188 P.3d 1209 (recognizing that the “[fjruit of the poisonous tree doctrine generally requires suppression of. . . evidence obtained after an arrest made without probable cause” (omission in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {32} In sum, had Defendant’s counsel moved for suppression and had that motion been successful, the full extent of the State’s incriminating evidence against Defendant could have been excluded. 2014See State v. Montoya, 2008-NMSC-043, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 458 , 188 P.3d 1209 (recognizing that the “[fjruit of the poisonous tree doctrine generally requires suppression of. . . evidence obtained after an arrest made without probable cause” (omission in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {32} In sum, had Defendant’s counsel moved for suppression and had that motion been successful, the full extent of the State’s incriminating evidence against Defendant could have been excluded. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2004Involved in this inquiry is whether the “evidence was obtained as a result of the exploitation of [the misconduct].” Id. ¶ 36; see also Taylor, 1999-NMCA-022, ¶ 27 , 126 N.M. 569 , 973 P.2d 246 (stating that to admit evidence obtained in a consensual search “the consent must be both voluntary and purged of all taint under a Fourth Amendment challenge”); Jutte, 1998— NMCA-150, ¶ 21, 126 N.M. 244 , 968 P.2d 334 (distinguishing, with respect to search, between a “Fifth Amendment voluntariness analysis” and a “Fourth Amendment fruit of the poisonous tree analysis” stating “evidence obtained by the 2004Involved in this inquiry is whether the “evidence was obtained as a result of the exploitation of [the misconduct].” Id. ¶ 36; see also Taylor, 1999-NMCA-022, ¶ 27 , 126 N.M. 569 , 973 P.2d 246 (stating that to admit evidence obtained in a consensual search “the consent must be both voluntary and purged of all taint under a Fourth Amendment challenge”); Jutte, 1998— NMCA-150, ¶ 21, 126 N.M. 244 , 968 P.2d 334 (distinguishing, with respect to search, between a “Fifth Amendment voluntariness analysis” and a “Fourth Amendment fruit of the poisonous tree analysis” stating “evidence obtained by the | 1 | 3 |
State v. Juttegreen2 sentences2005See State v. Jutte, 1998-NMCA-150, ¶ 21 , 126 N.M. 244 , 968 P.2d 334 (noting that we observed in Bedolla, 111 N.M. at 455 , 806 P.2d at 595 , that under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), the Fifth Amendment voluntariness test is separate from the Fourth Amendment fruit of the poisonous tree analysis). 2005See State v. Jutte, 1998-NMCA-150, ¶ 21 , 126 N.M. 244 , 968 P.2d 334 (noting that we observed in Bedolla, 111 N.M. at 455 , 806 P.2d at 595 , that under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), the Fifth Amendment voluntariness test is separate from the Fourth Amendment fruit of the poisonous tree analysis). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2014It is likewise settled law that evidence “discovered as a result of the exploitation of an illegal seizure must be suppressed unless it has been purged of its primary taint.” Id. ¶ 25 (citing Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046 , ¶¶ 14, 23, for its recitation of the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” set forth in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). 2011See State v. Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, ¶¶ 14, 23 , 147 N.M. 134 , 217 P.3d 1032 (reciting the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine set forth in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). | 1 | 2 |
Brown v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Jutte, 1998-NMCA-150, ¶ 21 , 126 N.M. 244 , 968 P.2d 334 (noting that we observed in Bedolla, 111 N.M. at 455 , 806 P.2d at 595 , that under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), the Fifth Amendment voluntariness test is separate from the Fourth Amendment fruit of the poisonous tree analysis). 2005See State v. Jutte, 1998-NMCA-150, ¶ 21 , 126 N.M. 244 , 968 P.2d 334 (noting that we observed in Bedolla, 111 N.M. at 455 , 806 P.2d at 595 , that under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), the Fifth Amendment voluntariness test is separate from the Fourth Amendment fruit of the poisonous tree analysis). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 22-23 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (providing guidance on the interstitial approach and preservation of questions when broader protection may be available under the state constitution). 2020See State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 22-23 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (providing guidance on the interstitial approach and preservation of questions when broader protection may be available under the state constitution). | 1 | 1 |
New York v. Quarlesgreen2 sentences2020See Quarles, 467 U.S. at 659-60 (admitting both the defendant’s response to an officer’s question asked before giving Miranda warnings and the physical evidence); see also id. at 667-72 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (reasoning that suppression of the physical evidence is not proper and observing that “whatever case can be made for suppression [of statements made during custodial interrogation without Fifth Amendment instruction] evaporates when the statements themselves are not admitted”). {43} As the ultimate arbiter of the New Mexico Constitution, 2020See Quarles, 467 U.S. at 659-60 (admitting both the defendant’s response to an officer’s question asked before giving Miranda warnings and the physical evidence); see also id. at 667-72 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (reasoning that suppression of the physical evidence is not proper and observing that “whatever case can be made for suppression [of statements made during custodial interrogation without Fifth Amendment instruction] evaporates when the statements themselves are not admitted”). {43} As the ultimate arbiter of the New Mexico Constitution, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greenegreen1 sentence2018See Greene , 1977-NMSC-111 , ¶¶ 31-32, 572 P.2d 935 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lujangreen2 sentences2017See State v. Lujan, 2008-NMCA-003, ¶ 9 , 143 N.M. 233 , 9 175 P.3d 327 (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that the exclusionary 10 rule applies not only to evidence unlawfully seized, but also to evidence derived from 11 the original illegality.”). 12 CONCLUSION 13 {20} We reverse. 14 {21} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 __________________________________ 16 LINDA M. 2017See State v. Lujan, 2008-NMCA-003, ¶ 9 , 143 N.M. 233 , 9 175 P.3d 327 (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that the exclusionary 10 rule applies not only to evidence unlawfully seized, but also to evidence derived from 11 the original illegality.”). 12 CONCLUSION 13 {20} We reverse. 14 {21} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 __________________________________ 16 LINDA M. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rivasgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Rivas, 2007-NMCA-020, ¶ 16 , 141 19 N.M. 87 , 150 P.3d 1037 (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars the admission 7 1 of evidence obtained after an illegal arrest[.]” (emphasis added)). 2016See State v. Rivas, 2007-NMCA-020, ¶ 16 , 141 19 N.M. 87 , 150 P.3d 1037 (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars the admission 7 1 of evidence obtained after an illegal arrest[.]” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2015However, having now determined that the helicopter flyover was an illegal search, 2 we are left to decide whether Sergeant Merrell obtained Davis’ consent by means 3 “sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint of the illegal helicopter 4 surveillance.” Davis III, 2014-NMCA-042, ¶ 30 (internal quotation marks and 5 citation omitted). 6 {56} “The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bar[s] the admission of legally 7 obtained evidence derived from past police illegalities.” State v. Monteleone, 8 2005-NMCA-129, ¶ 16 , 138 N.M. 544 , 123 P.3d 777 (alteration in original) (inter | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ortegagreen1 sentence2012See State v. Ortega, 77 N.M. 7, 15 , 419 P.2d 6 1 219, 225 (1966) (rejecting an argument that the illegality of the custodial 2 circumstances for two juvenile defendants tainted their subsequent confessions 3 because we concluded that there was “no connection or relationship, one to the 4 other,” between those custodies and the confessions). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brickergreen2 sentences2007See State v. Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052 , 139 N.M. 513 , 134 P.3d 800 (suppressing drug evidence found in the defendant’s wallet during booking procedure where the arrest was for a traffic offense not requiring custodial arrest); State v. Warren, 103 N.M. 472 , 709 P.2d 194 (Ct.App.1985) (suppressing drug evidence found after the officer arrested the defendant without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence). 2007See State v. Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052 , 139 N.M. 513 , 134 P.3d 800 (suppressing drug evidence found in the defendant’s wallet during booking procedure where the arrest was for a traffic offense not requiring custodial arrest); State v. Warren, 103 N.M. 472 , 709 P.2d 194 (Ct.App.1985) (suppressing drug evidence found after the officer arrested the defendant without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Princegreen2 sentences2005Therefore, “the evidence obtained by the purported consent should be held admissible only if it is determined that the consent was both voluntary and not an exploitation of the prior illegality.” 4 LaFave, supra, § 8.2(d), at 76; accord State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 20 , 136 N.M. 521 , 101 P.3d 332 (holding that “[f]or evidence to be admissible, consent must be both voluntary and purged of all taint from a prior illegality”), cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-011 , 136 N.M. 656 , 103 P.3d 580 . 2005Therefore, “the evidence obtained by the purported consent should be held admissible only if it is determined that the consent was both voluntary and not an exploitation of the prior illegality.” 4 LaFave, supra, § 8.2(d), at 76; accord State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 20 , 136 N.M. 521 , 101 P.3d 332 (holding that “[f]or evidence to be admissible, consent must be both voluntary and purged of all taint from a prior illegality”), cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-011 , 136 N.M. 656 , 103 P.3d 580 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2008On appeal, the State concedes that “Defendant would be entitled to suppression under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine,” if the initial stop were found to be illegal “and it was further established that the police seized the drugs from [] Wise’s bra in exploitation of that initial illegality.” {10} In Hernandez, this Court held that “a defendant may have standing to challenge evidence seized from a third party if the search leading to the seizure of that evidence is an exploitation of the defendant’s own unlawful arrest.” 1997-NMCA-006, ¶ 17 , 122 N.M. 809 , 932 P.2d 499 . 2008On appeal, the State concedes that “Defendant would be entitled to suppression under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine,” if the initial stop were found to be illegal “and it was further established that the police seized the drugs from [] Wise’s bra in exploitation of that initial illegality.” {10} In Hernandez, this Court held that “a defendant may have standing to challenge evidence seized from a third party if the search leading to the seizure of that evidence is an exploitation of the defendant’s own unlawful arrest.” 1997-NMCA-006, ¶ 17 , 122 N.M. 809 , 932 P.2d 499 . | 3 | 1999–2008 |
State v. Leyva
green
2 sentences2015“In order for evidence obtained after an illegality, but with the voluntary consent of the defendant, to be admissible, there must be a break in the causal chain from the [illegality] to the search[.]” State v. Taylor, 1999-NMCA-022, ¶ 28 , 126 N.M. 569 , 973 P.2d 246 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009 , ¶ 17 n.1, 149 N.M. 435 , 250 P.3d 861 . 14 “In deciding whether the consent is sufficiently attenuated from the Fourth Amendment violation, we consider the temporal proximity of the illegal act 2015“In order for evidence obtained after an illegality, but with the voluntary consent of the defendant, to be admissible, there must be a break in the causal chain from the [illegality] to the search[.]” State v. Taylor, 1999-NMCA-022, ¶ 28 , 126 N.M. 569 , 973 P.2d 246 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009 , ¶ 17 n.1, 149 N.M. 435 , 250 P.3d 861 . 14 “In deciding whether the consent is sufficiently attenuated from the Fourth Amendment violation, we consider the temporal proximity of the illegal act | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Portillo
green
2 sentences2014It is likewise settled law that evidence “discovered as a result of the exploitation of an illegal seizure must be suppressed unless it has been purged of its primary taint.” Id. ¶ 25 (citing Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046 , ¶¶ 14, 23, for its recitation of the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” set forth in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). 2014It is likewise settled law that evidence “discovered as a result of the exploitation of an illegal seizure must be suppressed unless it has been purged of its primary taint.” Id. ¶ 25 (citing Garcia, 2009- NMSC-046, ¶¶ 14, 23, for its recitation of the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” set forth in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Hawkins
green
2 sentences2012The State asserts that Defendant’s actions constitute “a break in the 5 chain between the unlawful seizure and the subsequent discovery of evidence.” We 6 are not persuaded. 7 “The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars the admission of evidence 8 obtained after an illegal . . . detention except in very limited circumstances, such as 9 where there is a break in the causal chain leading from [the d]efendant’s unlawful 10 [detention] to the search of his person.” State v. Hawkins, 1999-NMCA-126, ¶ 16 , 11 128 N.M. 245 , 991 P.2d 989 (emphasis added) (alteration, internal quotation marks, 12 a 2012The State asserts that Defendant’s actions constitute “a break in the 5 chain between the unlawful seizure and the subsequent discovery of evidence.” We 6 are not persuaded. 7 “The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars the admission of evidence 8 obtained after an illegal . . . detention except in very limited circumstances, such as 9 where there is a break in the causal chain leading from [the d]efendant’s unlawful 10 [detention] to the search of his person.” State v. Hawkins, 1999-NMCA-126, ¶ 16 , 11 128 N.M. 245 , 991 P.2d 989 (emphasis added) (alteration, internal quotation marks, 12 a | 2 | 2008–2012 |
State v. Granillo-Macias
green
2 sentences2008Was the Arrest Based on Probable Cause? {11} “An officer has probable cause to arrest when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant the officer to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” State v. Granillo-Macias, 2008-NMCA-021, ¶ 9 , 143 N.M. 455 , 176 P.3d 1187 . 2008Was the Arrest Based on Probable Cause? {11} “An officer has probable cause to arrest when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant the officer to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” State v. Granillo-Macias, 2008-NMCA-021, ¶ 9 , 143 N.M. 455 , 176 P.3d 1187 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2007The Court has specifically applied the doctrine where the challenged evidence was obtained after an illegal arrest or detention.” State v. Bedolla, 111 N.M. 448, 454 , 806 P.2d 588, 594 (Ct.App.1991) (citations omitted). {10} Seventy years after Weeks, in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984), the Supreme Court analyzed the effect of the exclusionary rule on deterring police conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. 2007The Court has specifically applied the doctrine where the challenged evidence was obtained after an illegal arrest or detention.” State v. Bedolla, 111 N.M. 448, 454 , 806 P.2d 588, 594 (Ct.App.1991) (citations omitted). {10} Seventy years after Weeks, in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984), the Supreme Court analyzed the effect of the exclusionary rule on deterring police conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences2007The basic exclusionary rule originated in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914) where the Supreme Court ruled that certain papers unlawfully seized from the defendant could not be used in his trial in federal court for unlawful use of the mails. 2007The basic exclusionary rule originated in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914) where the Supreme Court ruled that certain papers unlawfully seized from the defendant could not be used in his trial in federal court for unlawful use of the mails. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2007Our Supreme Court explained as follows: “Denying the government the fruits of unconstitutional conduct at trial best effectuates the constitutional proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures by preserving the rights of the accused to the same extent as if the government’s officers had stayed within the law.” 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 . {16} Had Defendant been arrested on February 11 immediately after the officers observed the firearms in his home, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would have more plainly applied to require suppression of the drugs found incident to his 2007Our Supreme Court explained as follows: “Denying the government the fruits of unconstitutional conduct at trial best effectuates the constitutional proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures by preserving the rights of the accused to the same extent as if the government’s officers had stayed within the law.” 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 . {16} Had Defendant been arrested on February 11 immediately after the officers observed the firearms in his home, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would have more plainly applied to require suppression of the drugs found incident to his | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Warren
green
2 sentences2007See State v. Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052 , 139 N.M. 513 , 134 P.3d 800 (suppressing drug evidence found in the defendant’s wallet during booking procedure where the arrest was for a traffic offense not requiring custodial arrest); State v. Warren, 103 N.M. 472 , 709 P.2d 194 (Ct.App.1985) (suppressing drug evidence found after the officer arrested the defendant without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence). 2007See State v. Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052 , 139 N.M. 513 , 134 P.3d 800 (suppressing drug evidence found in the defendant’s wallet during booking procedure where the arrest was for a traffic offense not requiring custodial arrest); State v. Warren, 103 N.M. 472 , 709 P.2d 194 (Ct.App.1985) (suppressing drug evidence found after the officer arrested the defendant without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
green
2 sentences1991Our reading of Cohen is supported by Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). 1991Our reading of Cohen is supported by Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.