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.
37 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1930–2026 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. Utseygreen2 sentences2008There is no merit to defendant’s argument, including his constitutional claim, that his conviction should be reduced to an A-II felony based on the subsequent change in the weight requirement for first-degree possession (see People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398, 404 [2006]; People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]). 2007There is no merit to defendant’s argument, including his constitutional claim, that his conviction should be reduced to second-degree possession based on the subsequent change in the weight requirement for first-degree possession (see People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398, 404 [2006]; People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Moultriegreen2 sentences2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 , 53 2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 , 53 | 3 | 3 |
People v. Martingreen2 sentences2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 , 53 2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 , 53 | 2 | 3 |
People v. Travisgreen2 sentences2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 , 53 2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 , 53 | 2 | 3 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 , 53 2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014], citing People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]; People v Moultrie, 100 AD3d 401 , 402 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1102 [2013]), we conclude that “[t]here was no basis, other than sheer speculation, for the jury to find that the chemist inaccurately weighed the drugs, or to otherwise reject the portion of [her] testimony concerning the weight of the substance, while at the same time accepting the portion of [her] testimony identifying the substance” (People v Johnson, 66 AD3d 537 , 53 | 2 | 3 |
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences2011We therefore conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see People v Bolden, 70 AD3d 1352 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 838 [2010]; see generally People v Davis, 14 NY3d 20, 22-23 [2009]). 2011We therefore conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see People v Bolden, 70 AD3d 1352 , lv denied 14 NY3d 838 ; see generally People v Davis, 14 NY3d 20, 22-23 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Quinonesgreen2 sentences2008There is no merit to defendant’s argument, including his constitutional claim, that his conviction should be reduced to an A-II felony based on the subsequent change in the weight requirement for first-degree possession (see People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398, 404 [2006]; People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]). 2007There is no merit to defendant’s argument, including his constitutional claim, that his conviction should be reduced to third-degree possession based on the subsequent change in the weight requirement for second-degree possession (see People v Utsey, 1 NY3d 398 [2006]; People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]). | 1 | 6 |
People v. Rileygreen2 sentences2008There is no merit to defendant’s argument, including his constitutional claim, that his conviction should be reduced to an A-II felony based on the subsequent change in the weight requirement for first-degree possession (see People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398, 404 [2006]; People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]). 2007There is no merit to defendant’s argument, including his constitutional claim, that his conviction should be reduced to third-degree possession based on the subsequent change in the weight requirement for second-degree possession (see People v Utsey, 1 NY3d 398 [2006]; People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]). | 1 | 5 |
People v. Behloggreen2 sentences2007Even assuming that the court should have charged the new weight requirement (see People v Behlog, 74 NY2d 237, 240 [1989]), defendants were properly convicted of first-degree possession under the charge the court actually delivered without exception (see People v Sala, 95 NY2d 254, 260 [2000]; People v Dekle, 56 NY2d 835 [1982]), and there was more than sufficient evidence that defendants possessed in excess of four ounces, as charged to the jury. 2006Defendant, who was resentenced from a term of 15 years to life to a term of 12 years pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), claims he is also entitled to have his conviction reduced to second-degree possession based on the amelioration doctrine of People v Behlog ( 74 NY2d 237 [1989]) and the new law’s change in the weight requirement for first-degree possession. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2006We reject this argument, because the amelioration doctrine does not apply (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005], lv granted 6 NY3d 757 [2005]), and because, even if it did apply, defendant’s resentencing would not place him, for such purpose, in the posture of a person being newly sentenced (People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005]). 2006Defendant’s argument that he is entitled to reduction of his conviction to second-degree possession based on the change in the applicable weight requirement for first-degree possession under pertinent sections of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, §§ 21-22) is meritless (People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]; see also People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005], lv granted 6 NY3d 757 [2005]). | 1 | 2 |
172 Audubon Corp. v. 1018 Morris Park Avenue Realty, Inc.green2 sentences2006We reject this argument, because the amelioration doctrine does not apply (People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005], lv granted 6 NY3d 757 [2005]), and because, even if it did apply, defendant’s resentencing would not place him, for such purpose, in the posture of a person being newly sentenced (People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005]). 2006Defendant’s argument that he is entitled to reduction of his conviction to second-degree possession based on the change in the applicable weight requirement for first-degree possession under pertinent sections of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, §§ 21-22) is meritless (People v Quinones, 22 AD3d 218 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]; see also People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005], lv granted 6 NY3d 757 [2005]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Currygreen1 sentence2026Thus, even accepting that the jury could theoretically have determined that defendant's intent and victim A relinquishing the money were disconnected, considering the direct video and audio evidence presented to the jury and the jury crediting the victims' accounts, we find no basis to upset the verdict on defendant's weight challenge ( see People v Stansberry , 224 AD3d 1089 , 1091 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 930 [2024]; People v Jones , 202 AD3d 1285, 1289 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Curry , 152 AD3d 818, 820-821 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 948 [2017]; People v Parker , 127 AD3d 142 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2026Thus, even accepting that the jury could theoretically have determined that defendant's intent and victim A relinquishing the money were disconnected, considering the direct video and audio evidence presented to the jury and the jury crediting the victims' accounts, we find no basis to upset the verdict on defendant's weight challenge ( see People v Stansberry , 224 AD3d 1089 , 1091 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 930 [2024]; People v Jones , 202 AD3d 1285, 1289 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Curry , 152 AD3d 818, 820-821 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 948 [2017]; People v Parker , 127 AD3d 142 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Parkergreen1 sentence2026Thus, even accepting that the jury could theoretically have determined that defendant's intent and victim A relinquishing the money were disconnected, considering the direct video and audio evidence presented to the jury and the jury crediting the victims' accounts, we find no basis to upset the verdict on defendant's weight challenge ( see People v Stansberry , 224 AD3d 1089 , 1091 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 930 [2024]; People v Jones , 202 AD3d 1285, 1289 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Curry , 152 AD3d 818, 820-821 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 948 [2017]; People v Parker , 127 AD3d 142 | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Dunkleygreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whalengreen2 sentences2017A judge should not engage in a weight analysis as to the quantitative degree of risk of misidentification at this threshold stage. - 17 - - 18 - No. 55 and People v Knight ( 87 NY2d 873 [1995]) for the proposition that a trial court's determination whether to give an identification charge is always "a matter for the Trial Judge's discretion" (Knight, 87 NY2d at 874 ; see Whalen, 59 NY2d at 279 ), provided that the trial court conveys to the jury that the People have to establish the perpetrator's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see Whalen, 59 NY2d at 279 ; Knight, 87 NY2d at 874 ). 2017A judge should not engage in a weight analysis as to the quantitative degree of risk of misidentification at this threshold stage. - 17 - - 18 - No. 55 and People v Knight ( 87 NY2d 873 [1995]) for the proposition that a trial court's determination whether to give an identification charge is always "a matter for the Trial Judge's discretion" (Knight, 87 NY2d at 874 ; see Whalen, 59 NY2d at 279 ), provided that the trial court conveys to the jury that the People have to establish the perpetrator's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see Whalen, 59 NY2d at 279 ; Knight, 87 NY2d at 874 ). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Acevedogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Alvaradogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wattsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Salagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. DeAndressigreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Dunwoodygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bradleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bleakleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beattiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Usher v. Deangreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Knight
green
2 sentences2017A judge should not engage in a weight analysis as to the quantitative degree of risk of misidentification at this threshold stage. - 17 - - 18 - No. 55 and People v Knight ( 87 NY2d 873 [1995]) for the proposition that a trial court's determination whether to give an identification charge is always "a matter for the Trial Judge's discretion" (Knight, 87 NY2d at 874 ; see Whalen, 59 NY2d at 279 ), provided that the trial court conveys to the jury that the People have to establish the perpetrator's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see Whalen, 59 NY2d at 279 ; Knight, 87 NY2d at 874 ). 2017A judge should not engage in a weight analysis as to the quantitative degree of risk of misidentification at this threshold stage. - 17 - - 18 - No. 55 and People v Knight ( 87 NY2d 873 [1995]) for the proposition that a trial court's determination whether to give an identification charge is always "a matter for the Trial Judge's discretion" (Knight, 87 NY2d at 874 ; see Whalen, 59 NY2d at 279 ), provided that the trial court conveys to the jury that the People have to establish the perpetrator's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see Whalen, 59 NY2d at 279 ; Knight, 87 NY2d at 874 ). | 2 | 1996–2017 |
People v. Bolden
green
2 sentences2011We therefore conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see People v Bolden, 70 AD3d 1352 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 838 [2010]; see generally People v Davis, 14 NY3d 20, 22-23 [2009]). 2011We therefore conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see People v Bolden, 70 AD3d 1352 , lv denied 14 NY3d 838 ; see generally People v Davis, 14 NY3d 20, 22-23 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Brabham
green
2 sentences2011We therefore conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see People v Bolden, 70 AD3d 1352 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 838 [2010]; see generally People v Davis, 14 NY3d 20, 22-23 [2009]). 2011We therefore conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see People v Bolden, 70 AD3d 1352 , lv denied 14 NY3d 838 ; see generally People v Davis, 14 NY3d 20, 22-23 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
2 sentences2007Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was adjudicated a second felony drug offender is also without merit (see Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224 [1998]). 2006Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was adjudicated a second felony offender is also without merit (see Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224 [1998]). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
People v. Charles
green
1 sentence2026Thus, even accepting that the jury could theoretically have determined that defendant's intent and victim A relinquishing the money were disconnected, considering the direct video and audio evidence presented to the jury and the jury crediting the victims' accounts, we find no basis to upset the verdict on defendant's weight challenge ( see People v Stansberry , 224 AD3d 1089 , 1091 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 930 [2024]; People v Jones , 202 AD3d 1285, 1289 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Curry , 152 AD3d 818, 820-821 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 948 [2017]; People v Parker , 127 AD3d 142 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Holmes v. South Carolina
green
1 sentence2024Courts simply would be prohibited from considering the strength of the prosecution's alleged corroborating evidence as a factor in admissibility ( see Holmes , 547 US at 330-331 ) in the same manner as in the cross-racial identification context, where the Court has appropriately cautioned that "[a] judge should not engage in a weight analysis as to the quantitative degree of risk of misidentification" when deciding whether to admit expert testimony from a defense witness on the subject ( Boone , 30 NY3d at 536 n 6). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Boone
green
2 sentences2024A judge should not engage in a weight analysis as to the quantitative degree of risk of misidentification at this [*16]threshold stage " ( id. at 536 n 6 [emphases added] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). 2024Courts simply would be prohibited from considering the strength of the prosecution's alleged corroborating evidence as a factor in admissibility ( see Holmes , 547 US at 330-331 ) in the same manner as in the cross-racial identification context, where the Court has appropriately cautioned that "[a] judge should not engage in a weight analysis as to the quantitative degree of risk of misidentification" when deciding whether to admit expert testimony from a defense witness on the subject ( Boone , 30 NY3d at 536 n 6). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Matter of Yolanda D.
green
1 sentence2023In this case, the weight of the factors support the Family Court's determination that Aisha acted as the functional equivalent of a parent towards Erica during the relevant time period ( see Matter of Trenasia J. [Frank J.] , 25 NY3d at 1006 ; Matter of Yolanda D. , 88 NY2d at 797 ; Matter of Unity T. [Dennis T.] , 166 AD3d at 631; Matter of Gary J. [Engerys J.] , 154 AD3d at 941; Matter of Mackenzie P.G. [Tiffany P.] , 148 AD3d at 1017 ; Matter of Isaiah L. [Chris B.] , 119 AD3d at 799 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Mackenzie P.G. (Tiffany P.)
green
1 sentence2023In this case, the weight of the factors support the Family Court's determination that Aisha acted as the functional equivalent of a parent towards Erica during the relevant time period ( see Matter of Trenasia J. [Frank J.] , 25 NY3d at 1006 ; Matter of Yolanda D. , 88 NY2d at 797 ; Matter of Unity T. [Dennis T.] , 166 AD3d at 631; Matter of Gary J. [Engerys J.] , 154 AD3d at 941; Matter of Mackenzie P.G. [Tiffany P.] , 148 AD3d at 1017 ; Matter of Isaiah L. [Chris B.] , 119 AD3d at 799 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Isaiah L. (Chris B.)
green
1 sentence2023In this case, the weight of the factors support the Family Court's determination that Aisha acted as the functional equivalent of a parent towards Erica during the relevant time period ( see Matter of Trenasia J. [Frank J.] , 25 NY3d at 1006 ; Matter of Yolanda D. , 88 NY2d at 797 ; Matter of Unity T. [Dennis T.] , 166 AD3d at 631; Matter of Gary J. [Engerys J.] , 154 AD3d at 941; Matter of Mackenzie P.G. [Tiffany P.] , 148 AD3d at 1017 ; Matter of Isaiah L. [Chris B.] , 119 AD3d at 799 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Trenasia J.
green
1 sentence2023In this case, the weight of the factors support the Family Court's determination that Aisha acted as the functional equivalent of a parent towards Erica during the relevant time period ( see Matter of Trenasia J. [Frank J.] , 25 NY3d at 1006 ; Matter of Yolanda D. , 88 NY2d at 797 ; Matter of Unity T. [Dennis T.] , 166 AD3d at 631; Matter of Gary J. [Engerys J.] , 154 AD3d at 941; Matter of Mackenzie P.G. [Tiffany P.] , 148 AD3d at 1017 ; Matter of Isaiah L. [Chris B.] , 119 AD3d at 799 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Stan XuHui Li
green
1 sentence2019The Appellate Division rejected defendant’s arguments pertaining to the weight - 15 - - 16 - No. 86 of the evidence ( 155 AD3d at 578 ), and defendant does not contend that the Appellate Division failed to conduct a weight analysis or applied an incorrect standard (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349 ; Acosta, 80 NY2d at 672 ). “[T]he limitations of our Court’s jurisdiction prevent us from second-guessing” the Appellate Division’s determination that defendant’s conviction on the manslaughter counts was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (Delamota, 18 NY3d at 117 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Danielson
green
1 sentence2019The Appellate Division rejected defendant’s arguments pertaining to the weight - 15 - - 16 - No. 86 of the evidence ( 155 AD3d at 578 ), and defendant does not contend that the Appellate Division failed to conduct a weight analysis or applied an incorrect standard (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349 ; Acosta, 80 NY2d at 672 ). “[T]he limitations of our Court’s jurisdiction prevent us from second-guessing” the Appellate Division’s determination that defendant’s conviction on the manslaughter counts was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (Delamota, 18 NY3d at 117 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Delamota
green
1 sentence2019The Appellate Division rejected defendant’s arguments pertaining to the weight - 15 - - 16 - No. 86 of the evidence ( 155 AD3d at 578 ), and defendant does not contend that the Appellate Division failed to conduct a weight analysis or applied an incorrect standard (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349 ; Acosta, 80 NY2d at 672 ). “[T]he limitations of our Court’s jurisdiction prevent us from second-guessing” the Appellate Division’s determination that defendant’s conviction on the manslaughter counts was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (Delamota, 18 NY3d at 117 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Taranovich
green
2 sentences2018Although a defendant is not necessarily required to show that he has been prejudiced by the delay, the circumstances of each particular case control, and whether or not the defense has been impaired can be a "critical" factor in the weight analysis ( see Taranovich , 37 N.Y.2d at 446 -447 , 373 N.Y.S.2d 79 , 335 N.E.2d 303 ). 2018Although a defendant is not necessarily required to show that he has been prejudiced by the delay, the circumstances of each particular case control, and whether or not the defense has been impaired can be a "critical" factor in the weight analysis ( see Taranovich , 37 N.Y.2d at 446 -447 , 373 N.Y.S.2d 79 , 335 N.E.2d 303 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Dreyden green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Torres green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Dekle green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Seward v. State neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Johnson v. Hunt green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. George green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Iannone green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Darrow green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Alvarado green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Troy Savings Bank v. American Equity Funding, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People v. Lawrence green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Nunez green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Gray green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Ryan green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Reisman green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Scarborough green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Chambliss green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Wheeler green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Hurk green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Ryan neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Moyer green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Glover green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Jeffrey v. Koehler neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Mizell green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Hill v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.