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.
39 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1931–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jay v. Fischergreen2 sentences2016Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2016]; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 975 [2014]). 2016Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2016]; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 975 [2014]). | 3 | 3 |
Jay v. Fischergreen2 sentences2016Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2016]; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 975 [2014]). 2016Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2016]; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 975 [2014]). | 3 | 3 |
Matter of Bekka v. Annuccigreen2 sentences2016Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2016]; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 975 [2014]). 2016Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2016]; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 975 [2014]). | 2 | 3 |
Benito v. Calerogreen2 sentences2015Furthermore, the Hearing Officer, in addition to other comments, questioned petitioner’s veracity on multiple occasions during the course of the hearing and, at one point, openly called petitioner “a liar.” Under these circumstances, particularly given the fact that the Hearing Officer improperly shifted the burden of proof, we find that petitioner’s right to an impartial hearing was denied (see 7 NYCRR 253.1 [b]; see generally Matter of Benito v Calero, 102 AD3d 778, 779 [2013]; Matter of Williams v Goord, 23 AD3d 872, 873 [2005]; Matter of Vicioso v Goord, 266 AD2d 655, 655-656 [1999]). 2015Furthermore, the Hearing Officer, in addition to other comments, questioned petitioner’s veracity on multiple occasions during the course of the hearing and, at one point, openly called petitioner “a liar.” Under these circumstances, particularly given the fact that the Hearing Officer improperly shifted the burden of proof, we find that petitioner’s right to an impartial hearing was denied (see 7 NYCRR 253.1 [b]; see generally Matter of Benito v Calero, 102 AD3d 778, 779 [2013]; Matter of Williams v Goord, 23 AD3d 872, 873 [2005]; Matter of Vicioso v Goord, 266 AD2d 655, 655-656 [1999]). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Goordgreen2 sentences2015Furthermore, the Hearing Officer, in addition to other comments, questioned petitioner’s veracity on multiple occasions during the course of the hearing and, at one point, openly called petitioner “a liar.” Under these circumstances, particularly given the fact that the Hearing Officer improperly shifted the burden of proof, we find that petitioner’s right to an impartial hearing was denied (see 7 NYCRR 253.1 [b]; see generally Matter of Benito v Calero, 102 AD3d 778, 779 [2013]; Matter of Williams v Goord, 23 AD3d 872, 873 [2005]; Matter of Vicioso v Goord, 266 AD2d 655, 655-656 [1999]). 2015Furthermore, the Hearing Officer, in addition to other comments, questioned petitioner’s veracity on multiple occasions during the course of the hearing and, at one point, openly called petitioner “a liar.” Under these circumstances, particularly given the fact that the Hearing Officer improperly shifted the burden of proof, we find that petitioner’s right to an impartial hearing was denied (see 7 NYCRR 253.1 [b]; see generally Matter of Benito v Calero, 102 AD3d 778, 779 [2013]; Matter of Williams v Goord, 23 AD3d 872, 873 [2005]; Matter of Vicioso v Goord, 266 AD2d 655, 655-656 [1999]). | 2 | 2 |
Vicioso v. Goordgreen2 sentences2015Furthermore, the Hearing Officer, in addition to other comments, questioned petitioner’s veracity on multiple occasions during the course of the hearing and, at one point, openly called petitioner “a liar.” Under these circumstances, particularly given the fact that the Hearing Officer improperly shifted the burden of proof, we find that petitioner’s right to an impartial hearing was denied (see 7 NYCRR 253.1 [b]; see generally Matter of Benito v Calero, 102 AD3d 778, 779 [2013]; Matter of Williams v Goord, 23 AD3d 872, 873 [2005]; Matter of Vicioso v Goord, 266 AD2d 655, 655-656 [1999]). 2015Furthermore, the Hearing Officer, in addition to other comments, questioned petitioner’s veracity on multiple occasions during the course of the hearing and, at one point, openly called petitioner “a liar.” Under these circumstances, particularly given the fact that the Hearing Officer improperly shifted the burden of proof, we find that petitioner’s right to an impartial hearing was denied (see 7 NYCRR 253.1 [b]; see generally Matter of Benito v Calero, 102 AD3d 778, 779 [2013]; Matter of Williams v Goord, 23 AD3d 872, 873 [2005]; Matter of Vicioso v Goord, 266 AD2d 655, 655-656 [1999]). | 2 | 2 |
Laureano v. Kuhlmanngreen2 sentences2015As such, the determination is annulled and the matter is remitted for a new hearing (see generally Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 148-149 [1990]). 2015As such, the determination is annulled and the matter is remitted for a new hearing (see generally Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 148-149 [1990]). | 2 | 2 |
Rigle v. Dainesgreen1 sentence2024That said, ALJs are presumed to be impartial, and "petitioner has the burden of providing factual support demonstrating bias and pro[ving] that the administrative outcome flowed from such bias" ( Matter of Rigle v Daines[*4] , 78 AD3d at 1251 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Mangiero [Commissioner of Labor] , 197 AD3d 1458 , 1460 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 901 [2022]; see Matter of Richstone v Novello , 284 AD2d 737, 739 [3d Dept 2001];10 NYCRR 51.17 [b]). | 1 | 1 |
Richstone v. Novellogreen1 sentence2024That said, ALJs are presumed to be impartial, and "petitioner has the burden of providing factual support demonstrating bias and pro[ving] that the administrative outcome flowed from such bias" ( Matter of Rigle v Daines[*4] , 78 AD3d at 1251 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Mangiero [Commissioner of Labor] , 197 AD3d 1458 , 1460 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 901 [2022]; see Matter of Richstone v Novello , 284 AD2d 737, 739 [3d Dept 2001];10 NYCRR 51.17 [b]). | 1 | 1 |
Lauersen v. Novellogreen1 sentence2024We next address petitioner's claim that the ALJ was biased against him. "[E]very person is entitled to an impartial hearing in an administrative setting" ( Matter of Lauersen v Novello , 293 AD2d 833, 834 [3d Dept 2002] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Alexander M. v Cleary , 188 AD3d 1471 , 1474 [3d Dept 2020]). | 1 | 1 |
Pappas v. Farrgreen1 sentence2022During the impartial hearing, the burden of proof and persuasion remains with the school district to establish the validity of its plan ( see Education Law § 4404 [1] [c]; see generally R.E. v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 694 F3d 167, 184 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 569 US 1030 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
R.E. Ex Rel. J.E. v. New York City Department of Educationgreen1 sentence2022During the impartial hearing, the burden of proof and persuasion remains with the school district to establish the validity of its plan ( see Education Law § 4404 [1] [c]; see generally R.E. v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 694 F3d 167, 184 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 569 US 1030 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
Eschbach v. Eschbachgreen1 sentence2015“In determining custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child” (Matter of Rosenblatt v Rosenblatt, 129 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2014]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174 [1982]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Rosenblatt v. Rosenblattgreen1 sentence2015“In determining custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child” (Matter of Rosenblatt v Rosenblatt, 129 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2014]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174 [1982]). | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Goordgreen1 sentence2008Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that he was deprived of an impartial hearing, are unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Hamilton v Goord, 32 AD3d 642, 643 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
| Alfonso v. New York City Police Departmentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Soto-Rodriguez v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lavine v. Milnegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Palmer v. Columbia Gas Company of Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Brown v. . Order of Foresters
green
2 sentences1957As to whether appeals to bodies composed of personnel who are related as above indicated to the appealing persons and the actions of the latter which resulted in the expulsions ought to be considered futile, we need but quote from Rodier v. Huddell ( 232 App. Div. 531, 533 ): “A suspended member is not required to pursue his remedy by appeal within the organization when such appeal is to a board so constituted as to afford no likelihood of an impartial hearing.” (See, also, Wilcox v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, 210 N. Y. 370 ; Corregan v. Hay, 94 App. Div. 71 .) Further, insofar as a 1932(Matter of Brown, 34 Misc. 556 ; affd., 176 N. Y. 132 ; Corregan v. Hay, 94 App. Div. 71 ; Fritz v. Knaub, 57 Misc. 405 .)” (Italic words in brackets are mine.) It cannot be held as a matter of law that the constitution of the parent union and its general laws and rules amply and adequately provide for the determination of the issues herein raised within itself by resort to its own tribunals and that the court is accordingly without jurisdiction. | 3 | 1931–1957 |
Corregan v. Hay
green
2 sentences1957As to whether appeals to bodies composed of personnel who are related as above indicated to the appealing persons and the actions of the latter which resulted in the expulsions ought to be considered futile, we need but quote from Rodier v. Huddell ( 232 App. Div. 531, 533 ): “A suspended member is not required to pursue his remedy by appeal within the organization when such appeal is to a board so constituted as to afford no likelihood of an impartial hearing.” (See, also, Wilcox v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, 210 N. Y. 370 ; Corregan v. Hay, 94 App. Div. 71 .) Further, insofar as a 1957As to whether appeals to bodies composed of personnel who are related as above indicated to the appealing persons and the actions of the latter which resulted in the expulsions ought to be considered futile, we need but quote from Rodier v. Huddell ( 232 App. Div. 531, 533 ): “A suspended member is not required to pursue his remedy by appeal within the organization when such appeal is to a board so constituted as to afford no likelihood of an impartial hearing.” (See, also, Wilcox v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, 210 N. Y. 370 ; Corregan v. Hay, 94 App. Div. 71 .) Further, insofar as a | 3 | 1931–1957 |
Devlin v. New York State Department of Family Assistance
green
2 sentences2012Although Fitzpatrick should have recused himself from presiding over the removal hearing, the petition has been rendered academic to the extent that it seeks a judgment annulling his determination dated November 13, 2009, to remove the petitioners from office, since the petitioners’ terms expired prior to the submission of this appeal, and they no longer hold public office (cf. Matter of Gumo v Canzoneri, 263 AD2d 456 [1999]). 2012Although Fitzpatrick should have recused himself from presiding over the removal hearing, the petition has been rendered academic to the extent that it seeks a judgment annulling his determination dated November 13, 2009, to remove the petitioners from office, since the petitioners’ terms expired prior to the submission of this appeal, and they no longer hold public office (cf. Matter of Gumo v Canzoneri, 263 AD2d 456 [1999]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School District
green
2 sentences2011A parent aggrieved by the decision of the impartial hearing officer (IHO) may appeal to the State educational agency’s review officer (SRO) {see 20 USC § 1415 [g]; Education Law § 4404 [1] [c]; [2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5 [k] [1]; Cave, 514 F3d at 245 ). 2011A parent aggrieved by the decision of the impartial hearing officer (IHO) may appeal to the State educational agency’s review officer (SRO) (see 20 USC § 1415 [g]; Education Law § 4404 [1] [c]; [2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5 [k] [1]; Cave, 514 F3d at 245 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Goldberg v. Kelly
green
2 sentences1982(See, generally, Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254 ; Fuentes v Shevin, 407 US 67 .) They assert that the wages previously paid them, although mistakenly, are a valuable property interest entitled to protection. 1973The benefits payable to a welfare recipient may not be terminated until the recipient is afforded an opportunity of an impartial hearing (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 ). | 2 | 1973–1982 |
In Re the Arbitration Between Lipschutz & Gutwirth
green
2 sentences1969While it is true that parties to a contract may make whatever provisions they see fit for the designation of arbitrators (Matter of Lipschutz [Gutwirth], 304 N. Y. 58 ), it must further be assumed that they intended to provide for an arbitration which would be determined on the merits, rather than one in which the composition of the board left them no reasonable chance of an impartial hearing. 1967And while it is undoubtedly true that parties to a contract may make whatever provisions they see fit for the designation of arbitrators (Matter of Lipschutz [Gutwirth], 304 N. Y. 58 ), it must further be assumed that they intended to provide for an arbitration which would be determined on the merits, rather than one in which the composition of the hoard left them no reasonable chance of an impartial hearing. | 2 | 1967–1969 |
Brown v. Supreme Court of the Independent Order of Foresters
neutral
2 sentences1932(Matter of Brown, 34 Misc. 556 ; affd., 176 N. Y. 132 ; Corregan v. Hay, 94 App. Div. 71 ; Fritz v. Knaub, 57 Misc. 405 .)” (Italic words in brackets are mine.) It cannot be held as a matter of law that the constitution of the parent union and its general laws and rules amply and adequately provide for the determination of the issues herein raised within itself by resort to its own tribunals and that the court is accordingly without jurisdiction. 1931(Matter of Brown, 34 Misc. 556 ; affd., 66 App. Div. 259 ; affd., 176 N. Y. 132 ; Corregan v. Hay, 94 App. Div. 71 ; Fritz v. Knaub, 57 Misc. 405 .) The order dismissing the complaint should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendants to answer on payment of said.costs. | 2 | 1931–1932 |
Fritz v. Knaub
green
2 sentences1932(Matter of Brown, 34 Misc. 556 ; affd., 176 N. Y. 132 ; Corregan v. Hay, 94 App. Div. 71 ; Fritz v. Knaub, 57 Misc. 405 .)” (Italic words in brackets are mine.) It cannot be held as a matter of law that the constitution of the parent union and its general laws and rules amply and adequately provide for the determination of the issues herein raised within itself by resort to its own tribunals and that the court is accordingly without jurisdiction. 1931(Matter of Brown, 34 Misc. 556 ; affd., 66 App. Div. 259 ; affd., 176 N. Y. 132 ; Corregan v. Hay, 94 App. Div. 71 ; Fritz v. Knaub, 57 Misc. 405 .) The order dismissing the complaint should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendants to answer on payment of said.costs. | 2 | 1931–1932 |
Clark v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence2020The record does not support the petitioner's contention that the ALJ acted as the respondents' advocate and deprived the petitioner of an impartial hearing ( see Matter of Clark v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 55 AD3d 1284 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Matter of Hickey v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.
green
1 sentence2020Finally, the ALJ's determination, which was based upon the testimony of the arresting police officer, the officer's written report of the petitioner's refusal to submit to the chemical test, and the adverse inference drawn based on the petitioner's failure to testify, was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Schoonmaker v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 33 NY3d 926 , 928; Matter of Hickey v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 142 AD3d 668, 669 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Krupka v. County of Westchester
green
1 sentence2015Further, the father failed to produce evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial hearing could not be obtained in Orange County since he offered only conclusory allegations, beliefs, suspicions, and feelings of possible bias or the appearance of impropriety (see Matter of Michiel, 48 AD3d 687 [2008]; Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v Chan, 40 AD3d 560 [2007]; Jablonski v Trost, 245 AD2d 338 [1997]; Krupka v County of Westchester, 160 AD2d 681 [1990]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Behrins & Behrins v. Chan
green
1 sentence2015Further, the father failed to produce evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial hearing could not be obtained in Orange County since he offered only conclusory allegations, beliefs, suspicions, and feelings of possible bias or the appearance of impropriety (see Matter of Michiel, 48 AD3d 687 [2008]; Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v Chan, 40 AD3d 560 [2007]; Jablonski v Trost, 245 AD2d 338 [1997]; Krupka v County of Westchester, 160 AD2d 681 [1990]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In re the Estate of Michiel
green
1 sentence2015Further, the father failed to produce evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial hearing could not be obtained in Orange County since he offered only conclusory allegations, beliefs, suspicions, and feelings of possible bias or the appearance of impropriety (see Matter of Michiel, 48 AD3d 687 [2008]; Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v Chan, 40 AD3d 560 [2007]; Jablonski v Trost, 245 AD2d 338 [1997]; Krupka v County of Westchester, 160 AD2d 681 [1990]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jablonski v. Trost
green
1 sentence2015Further, the father failed to produce evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial hearing could not be obtained in Orange County since he offered only conclusory allegations, beliefs, suspicions, and feelings of possible bias or the appearance of impropriety (see Matter of Michiel, 48 AD3d 687 [2008]; Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v Chan, 40 AD3d 560 [2007]; Jablonski v Trost, 245 AD2d 338 [1997]; Krupka v County of Westchester, 160 AD2d 681 [1990]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Tyk v. New York State Education Department neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Robinson v. Finkel
green
2 sentences2003(Cf. Robinson v Finkel, supra, 194 Misc 2d 55 [2002] [attempt to evict tenants based on non-desirability charges violated due process where determination devoid, inter alia, of an evidentiary hearing on the record, and tenant deprived of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine, and otherwise be informed of the evidence, before an impartial hearing officer]; Sumpter v New York City Hous. 2003(Cf. Robinson v Finkel, supra, 194 Misc 2d 55 [2002] [attempt to evict tenants based on non-desirability charges violated due process where determination devoid, inter alia, of an evidentiary hearing on the record, and tenant deprived of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine, and otherwise be informed of the evidence, before an impartial hearing officer]; Sumpter v New York City Hous. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Featherstone v. Franco green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Tyson v. New York City Housing Authority green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Lang v. Rozzi green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Escalera v. New York Housing Authority green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Zalmanov v. Bratton green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Goldsmith v. DeBuono green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Kole v. New York State Education Department green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Miller v. West Lafayette Community School Corp. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| United States v. Anderson green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Kay v. Ehrler green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Rappaport v. Vance green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Doe v. Board of Education of Baltimore County green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Hodges v. Scully green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Plummer v. Barkley neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| In re Feldman green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Pachkofsky v. Oregon ex rel. Port of Portland green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Warder v. Board of Regents green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Nieves v. Coughlin neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Afrika v. Edwards green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| MATTER OF McBARNETTE v. Sobol green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Berenhaus v. Ward green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Withrow v. Larkin green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| In re Forsyth neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Feinberg v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.