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.
35 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re SBCgreen2 sentences2003GOODMAN, J., concurring in result. ¶ 1 The issue of the appellate standard of review was established by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in In re S.B.C, 2002 OK 83 , 64 P.3d 1080 (2002), wherein the court stated that "appellate review of parental-status-termination decisions must be based upon the clear-and-convincing evidence standard." Id., 2002 OK 83 at ¶ 4, 64 P.3d at 1081. 2003GOODMAN, J., concurring in result. ¶ 1 The issue of the appellate standard of review was established by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in In re S.B.C, 2002 OK 83 , 64 P.3d 1080 (2002), wherein the court stated that "appellate review of parental-status-termination decisions must be based upon the clear-and-convincing evidence standard." Id., 2002 OK 83 at ¶ 4, 64 P.3d at 1081. | 3 | 7 |
Matter of CGgreen2 sentences2022"The clear and convincing evidence requirement 'balances the parents' fundamental freedom from family disruption with the state's duty to protect children within its borders.'" Id . (quoting C.G. , 1981 OK 131, ¶ 17 ). ¶21 It is abundantly clear that the law required Petitioners to fully support their quest for termination of Father's parental rights with clear and convincing evidence to support their claim pursuant to § 7505-4.2 that he failed to maintain frequent and regular contact with AMH or failed to exercise his parental rights and responsibilities. 2015In C.G., Matter of, 1981 OK 131 , ¶ 15-19, 637 P.2d 66 , this court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard to parental bond severance. | 2 | 9 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2005Committee Comments The United States Supreme Court held in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769-70 (1982), that the clear and convincing evidence standard is required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for termination of parental rights. 2005The United States Supreme Court decided in the Santosky case that a clear and convincing evidence standard was constitutionally required because the government’s interest in a preponderance standard was less than the interests of the parent and child in a higher standard and because the risk of error from using a preponderance standard was substantial. 455 U.S. at 758 . | 2 | 3 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2015But not only does the standard of proof reflect the importance of a particular adjudication, it also serves as "a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants." Santosky, supra, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395 ; Addington, supra, 441 U.S. at 423 , 99 S.Ct. at 1807-1808 . 2015But not only does the standard of proof reflect the importance of a particular adjudication, it also serves as "a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants." Santosky, supra, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395 ; Addington, supra, 441 U.S. at 423 , 99 S.Ct. at 1807-1808 . | 1 | 2 |
Consolidated Equipment Sales, Inc. v. First State Bank & Trust Co. of Guthriegreen2 sentences2015See C.G., Matter of , 1981 OK 31, ¶16. 4 As it is difficult to imagine more important interests being at stake in a civil matter than those implicated in the decision to deny life-sustaining treatment for a child in state custody, clear and convincing evidence is the only Constitutionally acceptable standard to satisfy the requirements of due process. 2015See C.G., Matter of , 1981 OK 31, ¶16. 4 As it is difficult to imagine more important interests being at stake in a civil matter than those implicated in the decision to deny life-sustaining treatment for a child in state custody, clear and convincing evidence is the only Constitutionally acceptable standard to satisfy the requirements of due process. | 1 | 2 |
Lott v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Lott v. State , 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 136 , 98 P.3d 318, 351 (an appellant must present evidence, not speculation, second guesses or innuendo in order to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for a hearing under Rule 3.11); Stemple , 2000 OK CR 4, ¶ 61 , 994 P.2d at 73 (denying ineffective assistance of counsel claim where appellant failed to show what witness's testimony would be). 2023Lott v. State , 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 136 , 98 P.3d 318, 351 (an appellant must present evidence, not speculation, second guesses or innuendo in order to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for a hearing under Rule 3.11); Stemple , 2000 OK CR 4, ¶ 61 , 994 P.2d at 73 (denying ineffective assistance of counsel claim where appellant failed to show what witness's testimony would be). | 1 | 1 |
Stemple v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Lott v. State , 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 136 , 98 P.3d 318, 351 (an appellant must present evidence, not speculation, second guesses or innuendo in order to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for a hearing under Rule 3.11); Stemple , 2000 OK CR 4, ¶ 61 , 994 P.2d at 73 (denying ineffective assistance of counsel claim where appellant failed to show what witness's testimony would be). 2023Lott v. State , 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 136 , 98 P.3d 318, 351 (an appellant must present evidence, not speculation, second guesses or innuendo in order to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for a hearing under Rule 3.11); Stemple , 2000 OK CR 4, ¶ 61 , 994 P.2d at 73 (denying ineffective assistance of counsel claim where appellant failed to show what witness's testimony would be). | 1 | 1 |
Towne v. Hubbardgreen2 sentences2022Whenever the court determines a review hearing is necessary or desirable, the date of the review hearing. ¶25 Although Wife executed a DPOA, it did not contain a nomination of guardian as authorized by 30 O.S.2011, § 3-102 Towne , ¶ 13, 3 P.3d at 159-60, this Court opined: A constitutionally unassailable guardianship proceeding must therefore include proper written notice, a hearing at which the prospective ward may appear and present evidence, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, a neutral decision-maker, representation by counsel, findings meeting a clear and conv 2022Whenever the court determines a review hearing is necessary or desirable, the date of the review hearing. ¶25 Although Wife executed a DPOA, it did not contain a nomination of guardian as authorized by 30 O.S.2011, § 3-102 Towne , ¶ 13, 3 P.3d at 159-60 , this Court opined: A constitutionally unassailable guardianship proceeding must therefore include proper written notice, a hearing at which the prospective ward may appear and present evidence, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, a neutral decision-maker, representation by counsel, findings meeting a clear and con | 1 | 1 |
In Re JSgreen2 sentences2012Mother testified that Father had been abusive in their relationship and she was trying to take the steps to break away from him, including getting some help to obtain a divorce from him. 5 . ''There is no precise definition for what constitutes 'active efforts,' and it should be determined by the court on a case by case basis." Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases, (Oklahoma Supreme Court Committee's Introductory Note, ch. 5) (citing In re J.S., 2008 OK CIV APP 15 , ¶ 7, 177 P.3d at 592). 6 . "[The evidence must show the existence of particular conditions in the home that are 2012Mother testified that Father had been abusive in their relationship and she was trying to take the steps to break away from him, including getting some help to obtain a divorce from him. 5 . ''There is no precise definition for what constitutes 'active efforts,' and it should be determined by the court on a case by case basis." Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases, (Oklahoma Supreme Court Committee's Introductory Note, ch. 5) (citing In re J.S., 2008 OK CIV APP 15 , ¶ 7, 177 P.3d at 592). 6 . "[The evidence must show the existence of particular conditions in the home that are | 1 | 1 |
| Cantrell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of LaCavagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Heavey v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
In Re a Member of State Bar of Arizona Rileygreen2 sentences1995On this record Eakin's postjudgment acts, when considered together, are amply supportive of (a) the PRT's finding of rules violation and (b) the need for imposing professional discipline. [27] For the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, see Rule 6.12, supra note 21; Braswell, supra note 21 at 1232. [28] See in this connection bar disciplinary cases involving improper ex parte communications by a lawyer with a judge about the merits of a case assigned to the trier Matter of LaCava, 615 N.E.2d 93, 96 (Ind.1993) (respondent communicated ex parte with a member of a medical malpractice review 1995On this record Eakin's postjudgment acts, when considered together, are amply supportive of (a) the PRT's finding of rules violation and (b) the need for imposing professional discipline. [27] For the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, see Rule 6.12, supra note 21; Braswell, supra note 21 at 1232. [28] See in this connection bar disciplinary cases involving improper ex parte communications by a lawyer with a judge about the merits of a case assigned to the trier Matter of LaCava, 615 N.E.2d 93, 96 (Ind.1993) (respondent communicated ex parte with a member of a medical malpractice review | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Burrowsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Haslergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists
green
2 sentences2015STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶9 "Because of the interest at stake in the loss of a license and the potential damage to a professional reputation resulting from disciplinary proceedings, [the Supreme Court] has recognized that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings against a person holding a professional license is a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard." Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of State of Oklahoma , 1996 OK 41 , ¶ 20, 913 P.2d 1339 . 2015STANDARD OF REVIEW 9 "Because of the interest at stake in the loss of a license and the potential damage to a professional reputation resulting from disciplinary proceedings, [the Supreme Court] has recognized that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings against a person holding a professional Hecense is a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard." Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of State of Oklahoma, 1996 OK 41 , ¶ 20, 913 P.2d 1339 . | 3 | 2001–2015 |
John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs also relied on an opinion by Justice Stevens announcing the judgment of the Court in which only Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in Miller v. Albright , 523 U.S. 420 , 436, 118 S.Ct. 1428 , 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998), with the opinion stating a clear and convincing evidence standard had been incorporated into a federal statute to deter "fraudulent claims." John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. , 2017 OK 81 , ¶¶ 10-11, 405 P.3d 681 , 685-686, explaining Zeier v. Zimmer , 2006 OK 98 , 152 P.3d 861 . 2019Plaintiffs also relied on an opinion by Justice Stevens announcing the judgment of the Court in which only Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in Miller v. Albright , 523 U.S. 420 , 436, 118 S.Ct. 1428 , 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998), with the opinion stating a clear and convincing evidence standard had been incorporated into a federal statute to deter "fraudulent claims." John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. , 2017 OK 81 , ¶¶ 10-11, 405 P.3d 681 , 685-686, explaining Zeier v. Zimmer , 2006 OK 98 , 152 P.3d 861 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Miller v. Albright
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs also relied on an opinion by Justice Stevens announcing the judgment of the Court in which only Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in Miller v. Albright , 523 U.S. 420 , 436, 118 S.Ct. 1428 , 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998), with the opinion stating a clear and convincing evidence standard had been incorporated into a federal statute to deter "fraudulent claims." John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. , 2017 OK 81 , ¶¶ 10-11, 405 P.3d 681 , 685-686, explaining Zeier v. Zimmer , 2006 OK 98 , 152 P.3d 861 . 2019Plaintiffs also relied on an opinion by Justice Stevens announcing the judgment of the Court in which only Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in Miller v. Albright , 523 U.S. 420 , 436, 118 S.Ct. 1428 , 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998), with the opinion stating a clear and convincing evidence standard had been incorporated into a federal statute to deter "fraudulent claims." John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. , 2017 OK 81 , ¶¶ 10-11, 405 P.3d 681 , 685-686, explaining Zeier v. Zimmer , 2006 OK 98 , 152 P.3d 861 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs also relied on an opinion by Justice Stevens announcing the judgment of the Court in which only Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in Miller v. Albright , 523 U.S. 420 , 436, 118 S.Ct. 1428 , 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998), with the opinion stating a clear and convincing evidence standard had been incorporated into a federal statute to deter "fraudulent claims." John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. , 2017 OK 81 , ¶¶ 10-11, 405 P.3d 681 , 685-686, explaining Zeier v. Zimmer , 2006 OK 98 , 152 P.3d 861 . 2019Plaintiffs also relied on an opinion by Justice Stevens announcing the judgment of the Court in which only Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in Miller v. Albright , 523 U.S. 420 , 436, 118 S.Ct. 1428 , 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998), with the opinion stating a clear and convincing evidence standard had been incorporated into a federal statute to deter "fraudulent claims." John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. , 2017 OK 81 , ¶¶ 10-11, 405 P.3d 681 , 685-686, explaining Zeier v. Zimmer , 2006 OK 98 , 152 P.3d 861 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Massengale v. Oklahoma Board of Examiners in Optometry
green
2 sentences2015We must accord great weight to "an administrative entity in the exercise of *924 its expertise.” Massengale v. Oklahoma Bd. of Exam’rs in Optometry, 2001 OK 55, ¶ 20 , 29 P.3d 558 . 2015We must accord great weight to "an administrative entity in the exercise of *924 its expertise.” Massengale v. Oklahoma Bd. of Exam’rs in Optometry, 2001 OK 55, ¶ 20 , 29 P.3d 558 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Adoption of J.R.M. v. Madden
green
2 sentences2011This Court determined "that it is the parental right of consent, rather than the absolute termination of all parental ties to the child, at issue in a section 60.7 hearing, we still . . . find the clear and convincing evidence standard . . . to be proper." [25] This position was reiterated in In the Matter of the Adoption of J.R.M. 1995 OK 79, ¶ 17 , 899 P.2d 1155, 1161 , wherein this Court stated: . . . 2011This Court determined "that it is the parental right of consent, rather than the absolute termination of all parental ties to the child, at issue in a section 60.7 hearing, we still . . . find the clear and convincing evidence standard . . . to be proper." [25] This position was reiterated in In the Matter of the Adoption of J.R.M. 1995 OK 79, ¶ 17 , 899 P.2d 1155, 1161 , wherein this Court stated: . . . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
KN v. State
green
2 sentences2006Also see K.N. v. State of Alaska, 856 P.2d 468 (Alaska 1993). {22 The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine suggested that the federal guidelines should be interpreted to change state law to the least extent possible, and held that the "active efforts" determination be governed by the clear and convincing evidence standard in termination cases. 2006Also see K.N. v. State of Alaska, 856 P.2d 468 (Alaska 1993). ¶ 22 The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine suggested that the federal guidelines should be interpreted to change state law to the least extent possible, and held that the "active efforts" determination be governed by the clear and convincing evidence standard in termination cases. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
In Re the Adoption of Darren Todd H.
green
2 sentences2002Matter of Adoption of Darren Todd H., 1980 OK 119, ¶ 18 , 615 P.2d 287, 290 ; Matter of C.G., 1981 OK 131 , ¶¶ 15-17, 637 P.2d 66 , 69-71. 2002Matter of Adoption of Darren Todd H., 1980 OK 119, ¶ 18 , 615 P.2d 287, 290 ; Matter of C.G., 1981 OK 131 , ¶¶ 15-17, 637 P.2d 66 , 69-71. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
BABY F. v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
green
2 sentences2024Court , 2015 OK 24, ¶ 19 , 348 P.3d 1080, 1087 . 2024Court , 2015 OK 24, ¶ 19 , 348 P.3d 1080, 1087 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Amendments to the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases
green
1 sentence2012Revised introductory notes for the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases (OUJI-JUV) contain a committee comment section discussing the "Dual Standard of Proof for Termination of Parental Rights." Citing In re Adoption of R.L.A., 2006 OK CIV APP 138, ¶ 15 , 147 P.3d 306, 310 , and cases from other jurisdictions, the committee states "that there are two standards for the burden of proof for termination of parental rights." The instructions define the clear and convincing evidence standard, and then state that "the reasonable doubt standard of proof is a higher standard of proof." | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Adoption of RLA
green
2 sentences2012Revised introductory notes for the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases (OUJI-JUV) contain a committee comment section discussing the "Dual Standard of Proof for Termination of Parental Rights." Citing In re Adoption of R.L.A., 2006 OK CIV APP 138, ¶ 15 , 147 P.3d 306, 310 , and cases from other jurisdictions, the committee states "that there are two standards for the burden of proof for termination of parental rights." The instructions define the clear and convincing evidence standard, and then state that "the reasonable doubt standard of proof is a higher standard of proof." 2012Revised introductory notes for the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases (OUJI-JUV) contain a committee comment section discussing the "Dual Standard of Proof for Termination of Parental Rights." Citing In re Adoption of R.L.A., 2006 OK CIV APP 138, ¶ 15 , 147 P.3d 306, 310 , and cases from other jurisdictions, the committee states "that there are two standards for the burden of proof for termination of parental rights." The instructions define the clear and convincing evidence standard, and then state that "the reasonable doubt standard of proof is a higher standard of proof." | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Yvonne L. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
2 sentences2011Sec., 227 Ariz. 415 , 258 P.3d 233 (Ariz.Ct.App.Div.1 2011). 2011Sec., 227 Ariz. 415 , 258 P.3d 233 (Ariz.Ct.App.Div.1 2011). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re TM
neutral
1 sentence2005Furthermore, the Committee notes that In the Matter of T.M., 2003 OK CIV APP 1 , ¶ 16, 62 P.3d 802 , 806, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals applied a clear and convincing evidence standard of appellate review with respect to the trial court’s findings that the parent failed to correct the conditions that led to the deprived child adjudication. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Phillips v. State
neutral
1 sentence2004Phillips, 59 P.3d at 517-18 . ¶ 7 As in revocations and accelerations, the State will henceforth be required to file a motion setting forth the grounds for bridging the Youthful Offender to DOC. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In re the Estate of Di Bella
green
2 sentences2001Norton v. Bunnell, 257 Cal.App.2d 324 , 65 Cal.Rptr. 139 (1967); In re Di Bella's Estate, 199 Misc. 847 , 100 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y.Sur.1950), aff'd. 279 App.Div. 689 , 107 N.Y.S.2d 929 (1951). 15 The question of the quantum of proof required to establish survivorship is an issue of first impression in Oklahoma. 2001Norton v. Bunnell, 257 Cal.App.2d 324 , 65 Cal.Rptr. 139 (1967); In re Di Bella's Estate, 199 Misc. 847 , 100 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y.Sur.1950), aff'd. 279 App.Div. 689 , 107 N.Y.S.2d 929 (1951). 15 The question of the quantum of proof required to establish survivorship is an issue of first impression in Oklahoma. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Estate of Rowley
green
2 sentences2001Norton v. Bunnell, 257 Cal.App.2d 324 , 65 Cal.Rptr. 139 (1967); In re Di Bella's Estate, 199 Misc. 847 , 100 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y.Sur.1950), aff'd. 279 App.Div. 689 , 107 N.Y.S.2d 929 (1951). 15 The question of the quantum of proof required to establish survivorship is an issue of first impression in Oklahoma. 2001Norton v. Bunnell, 257 Cal.App.2d 324 , 65 Cal.Rptr. 139 (1967); In re Di Bella's Estate, 199 Misc. 847 , 100 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y.Sur.1950), aff'd. 279 App.Div. 689 , 107 N.Y.S.2d 929 (1951). 15 The question of the quantum of proof required to establish survivorship is an issue of first impression in Oklahoma. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In re the Estate of Di Bella
neutral
2 sentences2001Norton v. Bunnell, 257 Cal.App.2d 324 , 65 Cal.Rptr. 139 (1967); In re Di Bella's Estate, 199 Misc. 847 , 100 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y.Sur.1950), aff'd. 279 App.Div. 689 , 107 N.Y.S.2d 929 (1951). 15 The question of the quantum of proof required to establish survivorship is an issue of first impression in Oklahoma. 2001Norton v. Bunnell, 257 Cal.App.2d 324 , 65 Cal.Rptr. 139 (1967); In re Di Bella's Estate, 199 Misc. 847 , 100 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y.Sur.1950), aff'd. 279 App.Div. 689 , 107 N.Y.S.2d 929 (1951). 15 The question of the quantum of proof required to establish survivorship is an issue of first impression in Oklahoma. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). ¶ 18 The question whether the evidence in the record in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law for the reviewing court. 2000Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). ¶ 18 The question whether the evidence in the record in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law for the reviewing court. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission
green
2 sentences1996The Court specifically noted that the “Petitioner [made] no claim that the Federal Constitution require[d] application of a clear-and convincing-evidence standard.” Id. at 97 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. at 1006 n. 15. 1996The Court specifically noted that the “Petitioner [made] no claim that the Federal Constitution require[d] application of a clear-and convincing-evidence standard.” Id. at 97 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. at 1006 n. 15. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Herron
green
1 sentence1996The precise issue before the Supreme Court was stated at the conclusion of the recitation of facts and procedural history of the case, where the Court said: “We granted certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion that application of the clear and convincing evidence standard does not violate due process. 516 U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 282 , 183 L.Ed.2d 202 (1995).” Cooper , — U.S. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 1376. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| The Florida Bar v. Mason green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Braswell green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.