236 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2026 24 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2026See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617 ("Had the State pursued an argument regarding application of the Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, we would have entertained it on the merits."); State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888, 897 , 367 P.3d 1260 (2016) ("Despite [the Court of Appeals'] suggestion that the good-faith exception might apply, the State did not file a supplemental brief presenting the argument to us and at oral argument the attorney for the State conceded that the State was not seeking application of the exception. 2025See Leon, 468 U.S. at 924-25 ; see also United States v. Bishop, 890 F.2d 212, 216 (10th Cir. 1989) ("[R]esolution of whether there was probable cause supporting the warrant is not necessary to our decision . . . because . . . the agents' conduct clearly falls within the 'good faith exception' to the exclusionary rule."). | 17 | 53 |
Herring v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021The United States Supreme Court found the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of the drugs and firearm officers found in their search incident to arrest based on the warrant because the mistake was "the result of negligence . . . rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional 12 requirements." 555 U.S. at 147 . "[T]he error was the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest. 2021As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. .... "[W]e conclude that when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence does not 'pay its way.'" Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 , 147-48 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 907 -08 n.6). | 12 | 19 |
Illinois v. Krullgreen2 sentences2021"First, we noted that the exclusionary rule was historically designed '"to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates."' Krull, 480 U.S. at 348 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 916 ). 2020Ed. 2d 285 (2011) ("[W]e have 'never applied' the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained as a result of nonculpable, innocent police conduct."); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 349-50 , 107 S. Ct. 1160 , 94 L. | 9 | 25 |
State v. Danielgreen2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 , Syl. ¶ 7, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010) (adopting the good-faith exception announced in Krull). 7 "'The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. 2022Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 , Syl. ¶ 7, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010) (adopting the good-faith exception announced in Krull). 7 "'The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. | 8 | 18 |
Martin v. Kansas Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2022That prior decision, Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 285 Kan. 625 , 176 P.3d 938 (2008), explained that the exclusionary rule did not apply in a driver's license suspension proceeding. 2022Compare Jarvis, 312 Kan. at 167-69 (holding that the amended language found in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1020 conferred upon courts the authority to set aside a driver's license suspension order if it arose from an unlawful stop) with Martin, 285 Kan. at 646 (finding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to driver's license suspension proceedings and a prior version of the statute, K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1020, did not permit an administrative agency to decide whether the stop was constitutional). | 6 | 16 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019Ed. 2d 599 (1984) ; see Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 , 487-88, 83 S. Ct. 407 , 9 L. 2019Ed. 2d 599 (1984) ; see Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 , 487-88, 83 S. Ct. 407 , 9 L. | 5 | 9 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020Even if we had concluded there was not a sufficiently strong showing of other factors to overcome the near complete absence of corroboration of the C.I.'s information, it was not entirely unreasonable for the officers to believe the warrant was valid. "[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is 'to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.' Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-37 , 131 S. Ct. 2419 , 180 L. 2020Even if we had concluded there was not a sufficiently strong showing of other factors to overcome the near complete absence of corroboration of the C.I.'s information, it was not entirely unreasonable for the officers to believe the warrant was valid. "[T]he sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is 'to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.' Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-37 , 131 S. Ct. 2419 , 180 L. | 4 | 14 |
Mapp v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2018Our Supreme Court has explained that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter law enforcement and other government officials and agents from unreasonable intrusions upon the lives and property of citizens." State v. Smith , 243 Kan. 715 , 724, 763 P.2d 632 (1988) (citing Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 [1961] ); see State v. Brittingham , 296 Kan. 597 , 605, 294 P.3d 263 (2013) (citing Smith ). 2018Our Supreme Court has explained that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter law enforcement and other government officials and agents from unreasonable intrusions upon the lives and property of citizens." State v. Smith , 243 Kan. 715 , 724, 763 P.2d 632 (1988) (citing Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 [1961] ); see State v. Brittingham , 296 Kan. 597 , 605, 294 P.3d 263 (2013) (citing Smith ). | 3 | 14 |
State v. Hoeckgreen2 sentences2018But see State v. Epperson , 237 Kan. 707 , 718-19, 703 P.2d 761 (1985) (evidence discovered as result of Fourth Amendment violation subject to exclusion as fruit of the poisonous tree). *965 In addition, when law enforcement reasonably relies on a search warrant later found to lack probable cause, the exclusionary rule does not bar the evidence's use unless one of four exceptions applies: "(1) the magistrate issuing the warrant was deliberately misled by false information; (2) the magistrate wholly abandoned his or her detached or neutral role; (3) there was so little indicia of probable cause 2018But see State v. Epperson , 237 Kan. 707 , 718-19, 703 P.2d 761 (1985) (evidence discovered as result of Fourth Amendment violation subject to exclusion as fruit of the poisonous tree). *965 In addition, when law enforcement reasonably relies on a search warrant later found to lack probable cause, the exclusionary rule does not bar the evidence's use unless one of four exceptions applies: "(1) the magistrate issuing the warrant was deliberately misled by false information; (2) the magistrate wholly abandoned his or her detached or neutral role; (3) there was so little indicia of probable cause | 3 | 8 |
State v. Powellgreen2 sentences2022If the State cannot meet this burden, the district court may bar the admission of the unlawfully obtained evidence at trial under the exclusionary rule—"a judicially created rule that safeguards against unconstitutional searches and seizures by suppressing illegally seized evidence as a deterrent to future violations." Powell, 299 Kan. at 694-95 . 2020See State v. Powell, 299 Kan. 690, 694-95 , 325 P.3d 1162 (2014) ("When evidence is illegally obtained, its suppression may be warranted under the exclusionary rule, which is a judicially created rule that safeguards against unconstitutional searches and seizures by suppressing illegally seized evidence as a deterrent to future violations."). | 3 | 5 |
Weeks v. United Statesred2 sentences2013Elkins, 364 U.S. at 222-23 ; Weeks, 232 U.S. at 394 (“To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action.”)- The twin objectives of deterring unconstitutional searches and preserving judicial integrity made the exclusionary rule an essential remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. 2013See Mapp, 367 U.S. at 657 ; Weeks, 232 U.S. at 393 ; cf. Leon, 468 U.S. at 905-06 (recognizing that Court precedent has “implied that the exclusionary rule is a necessary corollary of the Fourth Amendment”). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Carltongreen2 sentences2020Ed. 2d 364 (1987) ("The application of the 4 exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained by an officer acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute would have . . . little deterrent effect on the officer's actions . . . ."); State v. Carlton, 297 Kan. 642, 646 , 304 P.3d 323 (2013) ("Exclusion is not a personal constitutional right; rather, its purpose is to deter violations by the State."); State v. Perkins, 55 Kan. 2020Ed. 2d 364 (1987) ("The application of the 4 exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained by an officer acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute would have . . . little deterrent effect on the officer's actions . . . ."); State v. Carlton, 297 Kan. 642, 646 , 304 P.3d 323 (2013) ("Exclusion is not a personal constitutional right; rather, its purpose is to deter violations by the State."); State v. Perkins, 55 Kan. | 3 | 4 |
City of Atwood v. Pianaltogreen2 sentences2021See City of Atwood v. Pianalto, 301 Kan. 1008, 1013 , 350 P.3d 1048 (2015) (considering whether an officer's mistake was one of law or fact and finding that an officer's objectively reasonable mistake of fact that leads to an individual's arrest does not automatically require suppression of evidence discovered as a result of the mistake). 2015“The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy, designed to deter the government from engaging in unconstitutional conduct.” Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 285 Kan. 625, 640 , 176 P.3d 938 (2008), abrogated on other grounds Pianalto, 301 Kan. at 1012-14. | 3 | 3 |
| In re Brooksgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Talkingtongreen | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences2024Ed. 2d 496 (2009) (The exclusionary rule is "'designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect.'") (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 , 94 S. Ct. 613 , 38 L. 2024Ed. 2d 496 (2009) (The exclusionary rule is "'designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect.'") (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 , 94 S. Ct. 613 , 38 L. | 2 | 20 |
Brown v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 , Syl. ¶ 7, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010) (adopting the good-faith exception announced in Krull). 7 "'The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. 2022Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 , Syl. ¶ 7, 242 P.3d 1186 (2010) (adopting the good-faith exception announced in Krull). 7 "'The exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 , 45 L. | 2 | 16 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2026See Hicks, 282 Kan. at 617 ("Had the State pursued an argument regarding application of the Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, we would have entertained it on the merits."); State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888, 897 , 367 P.3d 1260 (2016) ("Despite [the Court of Appeals'] suggestion that the good-faith exception might apply, the State did not file a supplemental brief presenting the argument to us and at oral argument the attorney for the State conceded that the State was not seeking application of the exception. 2014See State v. Hens ley, 298 Kan. 422, 431 , 313 P.3d 814 (2013) (under case facts the unidentified informant’s tip was entitled to no weight); Hicks, 282 Kan. at 614-15 (detailing how and why information from “concerned citizens” is to be tested for veracity and basis of knowledge); Nor can the conversation between the detective and Powell create the indicia of probable Cause necessary to apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Deffenbaughgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Deffenbaugh, 216 Kan. 593, 598 , 533 P.2d 1328 (1975) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine "extend[s] the scope of the exclusionary rule to bar not only evidence directly seized, but also evidence indirectly obtained as a result of information learned or leads obtained in the unlawful search"). 2022See State v. Deffenbaugh, 216 Kan. 593, 598 , 533 P.2d 1328 (1975) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine "extend[s] the scope of the exclusionary rule to bar not only evidence directly seized, but also evidence indirectly obtained as a result of information learned or leads obtained in the unlawful search"). | 2 | 6 |
Arizona v. Evansgreen2 sentences2021There, the Court held the exclusionary rule did not apply when officers reasonably relied on an arrest warrant that a court's database erroneously listed as outstanding even though it had been quashed 17 days earlier. 514 U.S. at 4, 9-10 . 2021Evans held that a judicial employee's mistake did not compel exclusion because the exclusionary rule was crafted to curb police rather than judicial misconduct; court employees were unlikely to try to subvert the Fourth Amendment; and it did not follow that exclusion would have any "significant effect" in deterring the errors. 514 U.S. at 15 . | 2 | 5 |
McGee v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences2016State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 496 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 2114 (2011). 2016State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 496 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 2114 (2011). | 2 | 5 |
| State v. Karsongreen | 2 | 3 |
| Hudson v. Michigangreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Morrisgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Cassady v. Goeringgreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Walkergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Michigan v. Tuckergreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Searsgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pettaygreen2 sentences2020"But the exclusionary rule is not absolute." Pettay, 299 Kan. at 769 . 2019Cf. State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763, 772-73 , 326 P.3d 1039 (2014) (Johnson, J., concurring) (discussing other purposes served by the exclusionary rule). | 1 | 8 |
Segura v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019Under the exclusionary rule, if a criminal defendant challenges the State's use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, a court may suppress the "primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure" and "evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality," the so-called " 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' " Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796 , 804, 104 S. Ct. 3380 , 82 L. 2019Under the exclusionary rule, if a criminal defendant challenges the State's use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, a court may suppress the "primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure" and "evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality," the so-called " 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' " Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796 , 804, 104 S. Ct. 3380 , 82 L. | 1 | 8 |
Utah v. Strieffgreen2 sentences2019The Court reasoned that because the exclusionary rule is meant to deter police misconduct, invoking that rule in this instance would serve little purpose where, as the Court interpreted it, Fackrell simply made some "good-faith mistakes" in illegally stopping Strieff and his conduct thereafter was lawful. 136 S.Ct. at 2063 . 2018There are recognized exceptions to the exclusionary rule that allow the admission of evidence initially discovered in violation of a person's constitutional rights when the " 'interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.' " Strieff , 136 S.Ct. at 2061 . | 1 | 7 |
Nardone v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2000The exclusionary rule reaches evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 , 84 L. 2000The exclusionary rule reaches evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 , 84 L. | 1 | 6 |
Elkins v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013Elkins, 364 U.S. at 222-23 ; Weeks, 232 U.S. at 394 (“To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action.”)- The twin objectives of deterring unconstitutional searches and preserving judicial integrity made the exclusionary rule an essential remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. 2011Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960) (The exclusionary rule's "purpose is to deterto compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available wayby removing the incentive to disregard it."). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Probstgreen2 sentences2007Under the Leon good faith exception, evidence should not be excluded unless it is shown: “ ‘(1) that the judge or magistrate who issued the warrant was deliberately misled by false information; (2) that the judge or magistrate wholly abandoned his or her neutral and detached role; (3) that the warrant was so lacking in specificity that die officers could not determine the place to be searched or the things to be seized; or (4) that there was so little indicia of probable cause contained in the warrant that it was entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe the warrant valid. [Citation omit 2007Under the Leon good faith exception, evidence should not be excluded unless it is shown: “ ‘(1) that the judge or magistrate who issued the warrant was deliberately misled by false information; (2) that the judge or magistrate wholly abandoned his or her neutral and detached role; (3) that the warrant was so lacking in specificity that die officers could not determine the place to be searched or the things to be seized; or (4) that there was so little indicia of probable cause contained in the warrant that it was entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe the warrant valid. [Citation omit | 1 | 5 |
| State v. Ackwardgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Harris v. New Yorkgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Turnergreen | 1 | 3 |
| Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Perkinsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Rycegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. Parker
green
2 sentences2010The majority acknowledges that, to date, this state has only recognized the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule which derived from United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984). 2008In its brief, the State makes no argument regarding application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , reh. denied 468 U.S. 1250 , 105 S.Ct. 52 , 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984). | 10 | 1990–2021 |
State v. Doile
green
2 sentences2002This principle is referred to as the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and was adopted by our Supreme Court in Doile, 244 Kan. at 501-03 . 1990After the defendant was bound over, the trial court reversed itself by suppressing evidence seized from the defendant’s residence based upon its finding that the affidavit did not provide probable cause for the issuance of the warrant and that, based upon State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493 , 769 P.2d 666 (1989), the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was not applicable. | 9 | 1990–2011 |
State v. Dennis
green
2 sentences2026The question is whether an objectively reasonable officer could rely on" the authority. 297 Kan. at 230 . 2015To remedy this situation, the United States Supreme Court judicially created the exclusionary rule. 297 Kan. at 235 (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2426-27 , 180 L. | 4 | 2013–2026 |
State v. Longbine
green
2 sentences2014Prior to Hoeck , tire Kansas Supreme Court had held that in Kansas, the good-faith exception created by Leon does not apply to a warrant that fails to provide the magistrate with “a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed that drugs would be found in defendant’s residence.” See State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713, 721-22 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006). 2014Prior to Hoeck , tire Kansas Supreme Court had held that in Kansas, the good-faith exception created by Leon does not apply to a warrant that fails to provide the magistrate with “a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed that drugs would be found in defendant’s residence.” See State v. Longbine, 257 Kan. 713, 721-22 , 896 P.2d 367 (1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 , 147 P.3d 1076 (2006). | 4 | 2007–2014 |
State v. Waddell
green
2 sentences2007“Evidence obtained unlawfully in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights is admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule where the prosecution can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the unlawfully obtained evidence would have ultimately or inevitably been dis *126 covered by lawful means.” State v. Waddell, 14 Kan. 2007App. 2d 129 , Syl. ¶ 4, 784 P.2d 381 (1989): “Evidence obtained unlawfully in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights is admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule where the prosecution can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the unlawfully obtained evidence would have ultimately or inevitably been discovered by lawful means.” Accord State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2, 18 , 128 P.3d 382 (2006). | 4 | 1999–2007 |
| State v. Moralez red | 3 | 2013–2015 |
| Alliance Life Insurance v. Ulysses Volunteer Fireman's Relief Ass'n green | 3 | 1990–2015 |
| State v. Martin green | 3 | 2013–2015 |
| People v. Mitchell green | 3 | 2010–2013 |
| Horton v. California green | 3 | 2002–2011 |
| Nix v. Williams green | 3 | 1989–2009 |
| State v. Smallwood green | 3 | 1988–2005 |
| People v. Smith green | 3 | 1975–1982 |
| State v. Hubbard green | 2 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Oram green | 2 | 2020–2021 |
| State v. Poulton green | 2 | 2008–2020 |
| State v. Sanders green | 2 | 2019–2020 |
| State v. Perkins green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Bussart-Savaloja green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Smith green | 2 | 2013–2018 |
| State v. Mullen green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Utah v. Strieff green | 2 | 2017–2018 |
| State v. Pattioay green | 2 | 2015–2016 |
| State v. Jones green | 2 | 2007–2015 |
| State v. Ratzlaff green | 2 | 2010–2011 |
| Katz v. United States green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Dalia v. United States green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| South Street Seaport Museum v. McCarthy green | 2 | 2008–2010 |
| Massachusetts v. Sheppard green | 2 | 1985–2010 |
| Taylor v. Alabama green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Horn green | 2 | 2005–2007 |
| State v. Mendez green | 2 | 2004–2005 |
| State v. Turner green | 2 | 1995–1996 |
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.