37 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1983–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Maliziagreen2 sentences2015The Supreme Court properly admitted certain testimony by the victim’s wife pursuant to the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194, 220 [2011]; People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 755 [1984]). 2015The Supreme Court properly admitted certain testimony by the victim’s wife pursuant to the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194, 220 [2011]; People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 755 [1984]). | 4 | 8 |
People v. Reynosogreen2 sentences2021First, County Court properly precluded testimony at the first trial from individuals who overheard a conversation in which a man worried that he had left a knife with his fingerprints on it at the scene of the brawl, which would have only been relevant to establish the truth of the out-of-court statements and was therefore inadmissible hearsay to which the state of mind exception did not apply ( see People v Reynoso , 73 NY2d 816, 819 [1988]; People v Kachadourian , 184 AD3d 1021, 1023 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1113 [2020]; People v Ramsaran , 154 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1063 2005Under the state of mind exception, an out-of-court statement will be admissible where the “mere utterance of [said] statement without regard to its truth, may indicate circumstantially the state of mind of the hearer or of the declarant” (Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-106 [Farrell 11th ed], citing People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816 [1988]). | 4 | 6 |
People v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2020In any event, both of these statements were admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v James , 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 ; People v Borukhova , 89 AD3d 194, 220 ). 2013In any event, although the testimony was incorrectly admitted under the state-of-mind exception because the People failed to establish the foundational requirements for the exception (cf. People v James, 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 [1999]; People v Leath, 98 AD3d 690 [2012]), the error was harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Jackson, 8 NY3d 869, 871 [2007]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). | 3 | 5 |
People v. Borukhovagreen2 sentences2020In any event, both of these statements were admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v James , 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 ; People v Borukhova , 89 AD3d 194, 220 ). 2015The Supreme Court properly admitted certain testimony by the victim’s wife pursuant to the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194, 220 [2011]; People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 755 [1984]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Wlasiukgreen2 sentences2018Inasmuch as evidence introduced prior to the admission of that testimony established that defendant was aware of the victim's unwelcoming state of mind toward him, and because the victim's statements did not refer to any threats or bad acts by defendant ( cf. People v Meadow , 140 AD3d 1596 , 1598-1599 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 933 [2016]), we conclude that the testimony of the victim's granddaughter was properly admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Wlasiuk , 32 AD3d 674, 679 [3d Dept 2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871 [2006]; see also People v Kim 2007The note was relevant to defendant’s motive to harm the victim (see People v Sutherland, 154 NY 345, 351-353 [1897]; People v Martinez, 257 AD2d 410 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 876 [1999]; cf. People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 679-680 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871 [2006]; see generally Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-106 [Farrell 11th ed]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Greengreen2 sentences2015The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting certain testimony pursuant to the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 151 [2005]; People v Green, 92 AD3d 953, 956 [2012]). 2015The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting certain testimony pursuant to the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 151 [2005]; People v Green, 92 AD3d 953, 956 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. . Sutherlandgreen2 sentences2015The circumstances warranted a reasonable inference that defendant was aware of these documents and their contents (see People v Sutherland, 154 NY 345, 352 [1897]), establishing her motive to conceal the sale of a paint *526 ing allegedly given to her by the former First Lady. 2007The note was relevant to defendant’s motive to harm the victim (see People v Sutherland, 154 NY 345, 351-353 [1897]; People v Martinez, 257 AD2d 410 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 876 [1999]; cf. People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 679-680 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871 [2006]; see generally Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-106 [Farrell 11th ed]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cabangreen2 sentences2015The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting certain testimony pursuant to the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 151 [2005]; People v Green, 92 AD3d 953, 956 [2012]). 2015The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting certain testimony pursuant to the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 151 [2005]; People v Green, 92 AD3d 953, 956 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2013In any event, although the testimony was incorrectly admitted under the state-of-mind exception because the People failed to establish the foundational requirements for the exception (cf. People v James, 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 [1999]; People v Leath, 98 AD3d 690 [2012]), the error was harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Jackson, 8 NY3d 869, 871 [2007]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). 2013In any event, although the testimony was incorrectly admitted under the state-of-mind exception because the People failed to establish the foundational requirements for the exception (cf. People v James, 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 [1999]; People v Leath, 98 AD3d 690 [2012]), the error was harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Jackson, 8 NY3d 869, 871 [2007]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bongarzonegreen2 sentences1996Under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, a declarant’s statement that he intends to meet another is admissible 'where the statement is made under circumstances that make it probable that the expressed intent [is] a serious one, and that it [is] realistically likely that such a meeting would in fact take place’ (People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 , affd 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied 469 US 932 ; see also, People v Bongarzone, 116 AD2d 164, 169-170 , affd 69 NY2d 892 ; United States v Pheaster, 544 F2d 353, cert denied sub nom. 1995Under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, a declarant’s statement that he intends to meet another is admissible "where the statement is made under circum stances that make it probable that the expressed intent [is] a serious one, and that it [is] realistically likely that such a meeting would in fact take place” (People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 , affd 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied 469 US 932 ; see also, People v Bongarzone, 116 AD2d 164, 169-170 , affd 69 NY2d 892 ; United States v Pheaster, 544 F2d 353, cert denied sub nom. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bongarzonegreen2 sentences1996Under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, a declarant’s statement that he intends to meet another is admissible 'where the statement is made under circumstances that make it probable that the expressed intent [is] a serious one, and that it [is] realistically likely that such a meeting would in fact take place’ (People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 , affd 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied 469 US 932 ; see also, People v Bongarzone, 116 AD2d 164, 169-170 , affd 69 NY2d 892 ; United States v Pheaster, 544 F2d 353, cert denied sub nom. 1995Under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, a declarant’s statement that he intends to meet another is admissible "where the statement is made under circum stances that make it probable that the expressed intent [is] a serious one, and that it [is] realistically likely that such a meeting would in fact take place” (People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 , affd 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied 469 US 932 ; see also, People v Bongarzone, 116 AD2d 164, 169-170 , affd 69 NY2d 892 ; United States v Pheaster, 544 F2d 353, cert denied sub nom. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Crimminsgreen2 sentences2013In any event, although the testimony was incorrectly admitted under the state-of-mind exception because the People failed to establish the foundational requirements for the exception (cf. People v James, 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 [1999]; People v Leath, 98 AD3d 690 [2012]), the error was harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Jackson, 8 NY3d 869, 871 [2007]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). 2013In any event, although the testimony was incorrectly admitted under the state-of-mind exception because the People failed to establish the foundational requirements for the exception (cf. People v James, 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 [1999]; People v Leath, 98 AD3d 690 [2012]), the error was harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Jackson, 8 NY3d 869, 871 [2007]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Romerogreen1 sentence2024It is well settled that evidence is hearsay where it is " 'a statement made out of court, that is, not made in the course of the trial [and] is offered for the truth of the fact asserted in the statement' " ( People v Romero , 78 NY2d 355, 361 [1991], quoting Richardson, Evidence § 200, at 176 [Prince 10th ed]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramsarangreen1 sentence2021First, County Court properly precluded testimony at the first trial from individuals who overheard a conversation in which a man worried that he had left a knife with his fingerprints on it at the scene of the brawl, which would have only been relevant to establish the truth of the out-of-court statements and was therefore inadmissible hearsay to which the state of mind exception did not apply ( see People v Reynoso , 73 NY2d 816, 819 [1988]; People v Kachadourian , 184 AD3d 1021, 1023 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1113 [2020]; People v Ramsaran , 154 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1063 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gelfandgreen1 sentence2021Defendant's efforts to justify that testimony on other grounds, as well as his argument that he should have been permitted to present it at the second trial, are unpreserved and do not warrant corrective action in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves , 67 NY2d 125, 136-137 [1986]; People v Robinson , 36 NY2d 224, 228 [1975]; People v Evans , 31 AD3d 664, 664 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 847 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2021Defendant's efforts to justify that testimony on other grounds, as well as his argument that he should have been permitted to present it at the second trial, are unpreserved and do not warrant corrective action in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves , 67 NY2d 125, 136-137 [1986]; People v Robinson , 36 NY2d 224, 228 [1975]; People v Evans , 31 AD3d 664, 664 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 847 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ventimigliagreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nievesgreen1 sentence2021Defendant's efforts to justify that testimony on other grounds, as well as his argument that he should have been permitted to present it at the second trial, are unpreserved and do not warrant corrective action in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves , 67 NY2d 125, 136-137 [1986]; People v Robinson , 36 NY2d 224, 228 [1975]; People v Evans , 31 AD3d 664, 664 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 847 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kachadouriangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Estevesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Atkinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kimesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| The People v. Daniel A. Ludwiggreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Askagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Matthewsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Santarelligreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rosegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Malaki Shakur Latine, A/K/A Gregory Latine v. Louis F. Mann, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facilitygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moore v. Reynoldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Forrest v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Herbert v. Landogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1999In doing so, our Court would align itself with only one other appellate court in this country in this century in narrowly restricting the state of mind exception to prove solitary acts of the declarant in criminal cases (see, Clark v United States, 412 A2d 21 [DC Ct App]). 3 Jurisdiction after jurisdiction of State and Federal courts have determined to follow the lead of Hillmon and Hunter in admitting against criminal defendants (upon establishment of an appropriate foundation) the statements of a declarant’s intention to perform acts entailing the participation jointly or cooperatively of th 1987After carefully weighing the major arguments raised in opposition to extension of the evidentiary exception to such facts, this court joined the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in upholding the admissibility of such evidence due to its high degree of trustwor thiness and its necessity, given the lack of alternative or more reliable evidence. (92 AD2d, at pp 155, 160; but see, Clark v United States, 412 A2d 21, 29-30 [DC App].) However, to reduce the potential for prejudice against a defendant in applying the state-of-mind exception to such facts, the Malizia court exacted a rigid test f | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Malizia
green
2 sentences2015The Supreme Court properly admitted certain testimony by the victim’s wife pursuant to the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194, 220 [2011]; People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 755 [1984]). 2015The Supreme Court properly admitted certain testimony by the victim’s wife pursuant to the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194, 220 [2011]; People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 755 [1984]). | 7 | 1987–2015 |
Mutual Life Insurance v. Hillmon
green
2 sentences2006(Hillmon, 145 US at 294-295 .) More recently, the Ninth Circuit elaborated on the Hillmon doctrine as a state of mind exception that “provides that when the performance of a particular act by an individual is an issue in a case, his intention (state of mind) to perform that act may be shown. 1987Co. v Hillmon (supra) has sustained admissibility of such statements under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, the preponderant opinion of scholars in the area of evidence for many years has doubted the appropriateness of the application of the state-of-mind exception to permit admissibility of statements of the kind admitted in Hillmon , in Malizia, and in this case. | 7 | 1983–2006 |
Wolfson v. United States
green
2 sentences1996Under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, a declarant’s statement that he intends to meet another is admissible 'where the statement is made under circumstances that make it probable that the expressed intent [is] a serious one, and that it [is] realistically likely that such a meeting would in fact take place’ (People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154, 160 , affd 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied 469 US 932 ; see also, People v Bongarzone, 116 AD2d 164, 169-170 , affd 69 NY2d 892 ; United States v Pheaster, 544 F2d 353, cert denied sub nom. 1995The deceased’s statement to his wife, made immediately after he received a telephone call from one Badia, an accomplice, two days prior to the murder, that "[Badia] wants me to go to look at a car with him today in City Island,” was admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule involving a deceased victim’s declaration of future intent (People v Malizia, 92 AD2d 154 , affd 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied 469 US 932 ). | 4 | 1995–2006 |
People v. Chambers
green
2 sentences2018"It is well recognized that the hearsay rule does not exclude the admission of out-of-court statements demonstrating the state of mind of the declarant when that state of mind is an issue in the case" ( People v Chambers , 125 AD2d 88, 91 ). 1995Defendant’s reliance on People v Chambers ( 125 AD2d 88 , appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 694 ) is misplaced, because here, the declarant’s statement of his intention, not Badia’s, was in issue, and was relevant and trustworthy. | 2 | 1995–2018 |
Northeast Wine Development, LLC v. Service-Universal Distributors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Inasmuch as evidence introduced prior to the admission of that testimony established that defendant was aware of the victim's unwelcoming state of mind toward him, and because the victim's statements did not refer to any threats or bad acts by defendant ( cf. People v Meadow , 140 AD3d 1596 , 1598-1599 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 933 [2016]), we conclude that the testimony of the victim's granddaughter was properly admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Wlasiuk , 32 AD3d 674, 679 [3d Dept 2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871 [2006]; see also People v Kim 2007The note was relevant to defendant’s motive to harm the victim (see People v Sutherland, 154 NY 345, 351-353 [1897]; People v Martinez, 257 AD2d 410 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 876 [1999]; cf. People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 679-680 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871 [2006]; see generally Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-106 [Farrell 11th ed]). | 2 | 2007–2018 |
People v. Leath
green
2 sentences2013In any event, although the testimony was incorrectly admitted under the state-of-mind exception because the People failed to establish the foundational requirements for the exception (cf. People v James, 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 [1999]; People v Leath, 98 AD3d 690 [2012]), the error was harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Jackson, 8 NY3d 869, 871 [2007]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). 2013In any event, although the testimony was incorrectly admitted under the state-of-mind exception because the People failed to establish the foundational requirements for the exception (cf. People v James, 93 NY2d 620, 634-635 [1999]; People v Leath, 98 AD3d 690 [2012]), the error was harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Jackson, 8 NY3d 869, 871 [2007]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2007The note was relevant to defendant’s motive to harm the victim (see People v Sutherland, 154 NY 345, 351-353 [1897]; People v Martinez, 257 AD2d 410 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 876 [1999]; cf. People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 679-680 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871 [2006]; see generally Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-106 [Farrell 11th ed]). 2001Contrary to the People’s contention, the victim’s statement to that witness was not a statement of intent to perform a future act and thus does not fall within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule (cf., People v Malizia, supra, at 159-161; People v Martinez, 257 AD2d 410, 411 , lv denied 93 NY2d 876 ; People v Bernard, 214 AD2d 578, 578-579 , lv denied 85 NY2d 969 ; see generally, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-612 [Farrell 11th ed]). | 2 | 2001–2007 |
Mitchell v. United States
green
2 sentences1996Inciso v United States, 429 US 1099 ). 1995Inciso v United States, 429 US 1099 ). | 2 | 1995–1996 |
People v. Huertas
green
1 sentence2021If, as my colleagues maintain, the state-of-mind exception to the Molineux rule allows the People to introduce evidence on their direct case of two unrelated incidents of prior illegal gun possession in 2006 and 2007 to prove that a defendant knowingly possessed entirely different guns in 2017 under circumstances where, as here, the defendant has not given any statement or testimony, then such raises the question whether the Molineux rule has any vitality in the Second Department ( compare People v Huertas , 186 AD3d 731 , with People v Ball , 154 AD3d 1060 ; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Ball green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. . Molineux green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Stanley
green
1 sentence2021"Factors which play a part in measuring probative value are 'the degree to which the evidence persuades the trier of fact that [a] particular fact exists and the [logical] distance of the particular fact from the ultimate issues of the case'" ( People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d at 350, quoting Dolan, Rule 403: The Prejudice Rule in Evidence , 49 So Cal L Rev 220, 233). "'The court should not permit the admission of other crimes [or bad acts] until it has ascertained that the evidence tends logically and by reasonable inference to prove the issue upon which it is offered, that it is offered on an | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Singleton
green
2 sentences2021In my view, the admission of such evidence is plainly barred by the Molineux rule ( see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264 ; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208 ), and does not, contrary to the majority's position, fit within the state-of-mind exception to the Molineux rule. 2021If, as my colleagues maintain, the state-of-mind exception to the Molineux rule allows the People to introduce evidence on their direct case of two unrelated incidents of prior illegal gun possession in 2006 and 2007 to prove that a defendant knowingly possessed entirely different guns in 2017 under circumstances where, as here, the defendant has not given any statement or testimony, then such raises the question whether the Molineux rule has any vitality in the Second Department ( compare People v Huertas , 186 AD3d 731 , with People v Ball , 154 AD3d 1060 ; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Cass green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Morris green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Ingram
green
2 sentences2021Indeed, the majority's broad construction of the state-of-mind exception allows that exception to entirely swallow the Molineux rule, and ignores the conditions on the use of that exception as set forth in People v Ingram ( 71 NY2d 474 ). 2021Indeed, the majority's broad construction of the state-of-mind exception allows that exception to entirely swallow the Molineux rule, and ignores the conditions on the use of that exception as set forth in People v Ingram ( 71 NY2d 474 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Best green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Spicola green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Light green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Meadow green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Marshall green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Bernard green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Sanborn v. Kentucky green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Fitzgerald green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Dougherty green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Albert v. Louisiana green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Wood green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Fellman v. Poole green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Wilson v. Circuit Court of Alabama green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Cuffy v. City of New York green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.