41 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2021 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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. Snowgreen2 sentences2017See Snow, 337 Or at 223 (stating that the exigent circumstances exception “requires both probable cause and an exigency”). 2017See Snow, 337 Or at 223 (stating that the exigent circumstances exception “requires both probable cause and an exigency”). | 4 | 9 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2014See Snow, 337 Or at 225 (risk that defendant might escape created exigent circumstance justifying war-rantless search); State v. Roberts, 249 Or 139, 143 , 437 P2d 731 (1968) (“[I]t is preposterous to assert that a police officer in hot pursuit * * * must stop as soon as the pursued drives upon private property * * * and get a search warrant in order to apprehend the [suspect].”). 2014See Snow, 337 Or at 225 (risk that defendant might escape created exigent circumstance justifying war-rantless search); State v. Roberts, 249 Or 139, 143 , 437 P2d 731 (1968) (“[I]t is preposterous to assert that a police officer in hot pursuit * * * must stop as soon as the pursued drives upon private property * * * and get a search warrant in order to apprehend the [suspect].”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciakgreen2 sentences2017“The constitution requires a warrant so that a disinterested branch of government—the judicial branch—and not the branch that conducts the search—the *790 executive branch—makes the decision as to whether there is probable cause to search.” State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or 179, 186 , 263 P3d 336 (2011). 3 The state contends that its warrantless entry into defendant’s residence falls within an exception to the warrant requirement—namely, the exigent circumstances exception. 2017“The constitution requires a warrant so that a disinterested branch of government—the judicial branch—and not the branch that conducts the search—the *790 executive branch—makes the decision as to whether there is probable cause to search.” State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or 179, 186 , 263 P3d 336 (2011). 3 The state contends that its warrantless entry into defendant’s residence falls within an exception to the warrant requirement—namely, the exigent circumstances exception. | 2 | 5 |
State v. MacHucagreen2 sentences2018It reasons that that it could seize and search defendant's breath to determine his BAC either as a search incident to arrest under the reasoning in Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), or under the exigent circumstances doctrine applied in State v. Machuca , 347 Or. 644 , 227 P.3d 729 (2010). 9 Thus, **138 in the state's view, the warrantless search authorized by Oregon's implied consent laws is one that is constitutionally permissible, even if it is not one that can be sustained as a consent search for constitutional purposes. *19 The initial pr 2018It reasons that that it could seize and search defendant's breath to determine his BAC either as a search incident to arrest under the reasoning in Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), or under the exigent circumstances doctrine applied in State v. Machuca , 347 Or. 644 , 227 P.3d 729 (2010). 9 Thus, **138 in the state's view, the warrantless search authorized by Oregon's implied consent laws is one that is constitutionally permissible, even if it is not one that can be sustained as a consent search for constitutional purposes. *19 The initial pr | 2 | 4 |
State v. Fessenden / Dickegreen2 sentences2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce 2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce | 2 | 3 |
Hunsberger v. Woodgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Hunsberger, 570 F3d at 555 (defining exigent circumstances as “an emergency * * requir[ing] immediate entry to render assistance or pre- * vent harm to persons or property within”). 2014See, e.g., Hunsberger, 570 F3d at 555 (defining exigent circumstances as “an emergency *** requiring] immediate entry to render assistance or prevent harm to persons or property within”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Meharrygreen2 sentences2021The auto- mobile exception is a “subset of the exigent circumstances exception.” State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (Meharry II). 2021The auto- mobile exception is a “subset of the exigent circumstances exception.” State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (Meharry II). | 1 | 11 |
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2014The court held that the officers’ warrant- less entry and search of the defendant’s property to find the defendant and endeavor to rescue the children did not violate Article I, section 9. 311 Or at 130 . 2014The court held that the officers’ warrant-less entry and search of the defendant’s property to find the defendant and endeavor to rescue the children did not violate Article I, section 9. 311 Or at 130 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Mazzolagreen2 sentences2015One exception—the exigent circumstances exception—allows the police to conduct a search without a Cite as 356 Or 804 (2015) 811 warrant if the search is both supported by probable cause and conducted under exigent circumstances. 2015See Mazzola, 356 Or at 820 (analyzing the reasonableness of a search under the exigent circumstances exception in light of the intrusion’s “time, scope, and intensity”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pellergreen2 sentences1984In State v. Peller, 287 Or 255, 262 , 598 P2d 684 (1979), the court discussed the justification for that exception: «* * * jn certain cases, the societal interest in a warrantless search or seizure is simply believed to outweigh the interest in requiring prior judicial approval of such government action. 1979We noted in State v. Peller, supra, 287 Or at 262, that the theory underlying the exigent circumstances exception is one of "practical necessity.” The record discloses that by September 15, the police were well aware of Tolomei’s frequent deliveries, through numerous tips from reliable informants and by their own observations. | 1 | 2 |
Mitchell v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2021In holding that “the exigent-circumstances rule almost always permits a blood test without a warrant” in such circumstances, the Court noted both the heightened need for blood alcohol test- ing and that “an officer’s duty to attend to more pressing needs may leave no time to seek a warrant.” Id. at ___, 139 S Ct at 2531, 2535 . 2021In holding that “the exigent-circumstances rule almost always permits a blood test without a warrant” in such circumstances, the Court noted both the heightened need for blood alcohol test- ing and that “an officer’s duty to attend to more pressing needs may leave no time to seek a warrant.” Id. at ___, 139 S Ct at 2531, 2535 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bonillagreen2 sentences2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce 2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gefregreen1 sentence2017As we have previously held, where the request is reasonable, a “defendant [has] no constitutional right to refuse the administration of a breath test.” Gefre, 137 Or App at 83-84 (concluding that the use of evidence of the defendant’s refusal to take a breath test did not burden his rights under Article I, section 9, because the defendant had no right to refuse consent where probable cause and exigent circumstances supported administering the breath test); see State v. Greenough, 216 Or App 426, 430 , 173 P3d 1227 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 280 (2008) (“[I]n Gefre, we rejected the contention that | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greenoughgreen2 sentences2017As we have previously held, where the request is reasonable, a “defendant [has] no constitutional right to refuse the administration of a breath test.” Gefre, 137 Or App at 83-84 (concluding that the use of evidence of the defendant’s refusal to take a breath test did not burden his rights under Article I, section 9, because the defendant had no right to refuse consent where probable cause and exigent circumstances supported administering the breath test); see State v. Greenough, 216 Or App 426, 430 , 173 P3d 1227 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 280 (2008) (“[I]n Gefre, we rejected the contention that 2017As we have previously held, where the request is reasonable, a “defendant [has] no constitutional right to refuse the administration of a breath test.” Gefre, 137 Or App at 83-84 (concluding that the use of evidence of the defendant’s refusal to take a breath test did not burden his rights under Article I, section 9, because the defendant had no right to refuse consent where probable cause and exigent circumstances supported administering the breath test); see State v. Greenough, 216 Or App 426, 430 , 173 P3d 1227 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 280 (2008) (“[I]n Gefre, we rejected the contention that | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. BELLEQUEgreen1 sentence2017As we have previously held, where the request is reasonable, a “defendant [has] no constitutional right to refuse the administration of a breath test.” Gefre, 137 Or App at 83-84 (concluding that the use of evidence of the defendant’s refusal to take a breath test did not burden his rights under Article I, section 9, because the defendant had no right to refuse consent where probable cause and exigent circumstances supported administering the breath test); see State v. Greenough, 216 Or App 426, 430 , 173 P3d 1227 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 280 (2008) (“[I]n Gefre, we rejected the contention that | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cherrygreen2 sentences2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce 2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ritzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pine v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roska v. Petersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hitesman/Pagegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Parksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Read v. Casegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2006In State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 274 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986), this court recognized, as a subset of the exigent circumstances exception, an “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement. 2006In State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 274 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986), this court recognized, as a subset of the exigent circumstances exception, an “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement. | 7 | 1988–2016 |
State v. Baker
green
2 sentences2017State v. Baker, 350 Or 641, 647 , 260 P3d 476 (2011). 2017State v. Baker, 350 Or 641, 647 , 260 P3d 476 (2011). | 3 | 2014–2017 |
State v. Milligan
green
2 sentences2010The state was still required to prove, in order to justify the warrant-less extraction of defendant’s blood, that it could not have obtained a search warrant ‘without sacrificing the evidence’ and that the blood sample that it obtained had been extracted ‘promptly.’ State v. Milligan, [ 304 Or 659, 666 , 748 P2d 130 (1988)].” *721 The Supreme Court overruled Moylett in Machuca and held that no specific proof of the time necessary to obtain a search warrant or the dissipating evidence of blood alcohol content was necessary in order to establish exigent circumstances and excuse the need for a se 2010The state was still required to prove, in order to justify the warrant-less extraction of defendant’s blood, that it could not have obtained a search warrant ‘without sacrificing the evidence’ and that the blood sample that it obtained had been extracted ‘promptly.’ State v. Milligan, [ 304 Or 659, 666 , 748 P2d 130 (1988)].” *721 The Supreme Court overruled Moylett in Machuca and held that no specific proof of the time necessary to obtain a search warrant or the dissipating evidence of blood alcohol content was necessary in order to establish exigent circumstances and excuse the need for a se | 2 | 1992–2010 |
State v. Nicholson
green
2 sentences1995State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 274 , 721 P.2d 1357 (1986); State v. Nicholson, 89 Or.App. 306 , 748 P.2d 1028 , rev. den. 305 Or. 672 , 757 P.2d 421 (1988). 1995State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 274 , 721 P.2d 1357 (1986); State v. Nicholson, 89 Or.App. 306 , 748 P.2d 1028 , rev. den. 305 Or. 672 , 757 P.2d 421 (1988). | 2 | 1988–1995 |
State v. Bridewell
green
2 sentences1988There must be an “emergency” to satisfy the exigent circumstances requirement. 306 Or at 236 . 1988There must be an "emergency" to satisfy the exigent circumstances requirement. 306 Or. at 236 , 759 P.2d 1054 . | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences2021Like Article I, section 9, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution deems warrantless entries, searches, and seizures “per se unreasonable * * * subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated excep- tions.” Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 357 , 88 S Ct 507 , 5 In Fessenden, the officer believed it would take four to eight hours to obtain a warrant to seize the horse. 2021Like Article I, section 9, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution deems warrantless entries, searches, and seizures “per se unreasonable * * * subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated excep- tions.” Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 357 , 88 S Ct 507 , 5 In Fessenden, the officer believed it would take four to eight hours to obtain a warrant to seize the horse. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Stephens
green
2 sentences2021On the latter point, the Court focused on the need for officers to attend to other urgent tasks “in many Cite as 311 Or App 588 (2021) 599 unconscious-driver cases,” id. at ___, 139 S Ct at 2538 , and the Court observed that, in “the emergency scenarios cre- ated by unconscious drivers, forcing police to put off other tasks for even a relatively short period of time may have ter- rible collateral costs.” Id. at ___, 139 S Ct at 2539 . 2021On the latter point, the Court focused on the need for officers to attend to other urgent tasks “in many Cite as 311 Or App 588 (2021) 599 unconscious-driver cases,” id. at ___, 139 S Ct at 2538 , and the Court observed that, in “the emergency scenarios cre- ated by unconscious drivers, forcing police to put off other tasks for even a relatively short period of time may have ter- rible collateral costs.” Id. at ___, 139 S Ct at 2539 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ritz
green
2 sentences2020State v. Ritz, 361 Or 781, 790 , 399 P3d 421 (2017) (“The state has the burden of proving that the cir- cumstances at the time of the warrantless search fall within the exigent circumstances exception.” (Internal citation omitted.)). 2020State v. Ritz, 361 Or 781, 790 , 399 P3d 421 (2017) (“The state has the burden of proving that the cir- cumstances at the time of the warrantless search fall within the exigent circumstances exception.” (Internal citation omitted.)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
2 sentences2018It reasons that that it could seize and search defendant's breath to determine his BAC either as a search incident to arrest under the reasoning in Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), or under the exigent circumstances doctrine applied in State v. Machuca , 347 Or. 644 , 227 P.3d 729 (2010). 9 Thus, **138 in the state's view, the warrantless search authorized by Oregon's implied consent laws is one that is constitutionally permissible, even if it is not one that can be sustained as a consent search for constitutional purposes. *19 The initial pr 2018It reasons that that it could seize and search defendant's breath to determine his BAC either as a search incident to arrest under the reasoning in Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), or under the exigent circumstances doctrine applied in State v. Machuca , 347 Or. 644 , 227 P.3d 729 (2010). 9 Thus, **138 in the state's view, the warrantless search authorized by Oregon's implied consent laws is one that is constitutionally permissible, even if it is not one that can be sustained as a consent search for constitutional purposes. *19 The initial pr | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Estate of Schwarz Ex Rel. Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc.
green
2 sentences2017“The constitution requires a warrant so that a disinterested branch of government—the judicial branch—and not the branch that conducts the search—the P3d 668, adh’d to on recons, 349 Or 521 , 246 P3d 479 (2010) (describing the stan- dards for exercising discretion under ORAP 9.20(2)). 790 State v. Ritz executive branch—makes the decision as to whether there is probable cause to search.” State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or 179, 186 , 263 P3d 336 (2011).3 The state contends that its warrantless entry into defendant’s residence falls within an exception to the war- rant requirement—namely, the exig 2017“The constitution requires a warrant so that a disinterested branch of government—the judicial branch—and not the branch that conducts the search—the P3d 668, adh’d to on recons, 349 Or 521 , 246 P3d 479 (2010) (describing the stan- dards for exercising discretion under ORAP 9.20(2)). 790 State v. Ritz executive branch—makes the decision as to whether there is probable cause to search.” State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or 179, 186 , 263 P3d 336 (2011).3 The state contends that its warrantless entry into defendant’s residence falls within an exception to the war- rant requirement—namely, the exig | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce 2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Krause
green
2 sentences2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce 2017“The state has the burden of proving that circumstances existing at the time were sufficient to satisfy any exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480-81 , 366 P3d 331 (2015) (discussing consent exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 355 Or 759, 764-65 , 333 P3d 278 (2014) (discussing emergency aid and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement); State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 , 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (discussing exigent circumstances “exception” to warrant requirement and “automobile exce | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Santana
green
1 sentence2016The Court reversed, holding that the officers’ actions were lawful under the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement because, when an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a crime and the officer is in hot pursuit of the suspect, the “suspect may not defeat an arrest [that] has been set in motion in a public place * * * by the expedient of escaping to a private place.” Santana, 427 US at 43 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Kock green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Missouri v. McNeely green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Rice green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Sullivan green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Andersen green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Stone green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Nagel green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Jackson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Carroll v. United States green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Quinn green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Owens green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Miller v. United States green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Steffes green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. North green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Greene green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| State v. Gassner green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.