valuable privilege in Tennessee

199 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 27 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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.

Followed or applied (32)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Banegreen tenn · 2001 · cited in 69 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2005–2026 2 sentences 2026The Tennessee Supreme Court “has often observed that ‘closing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.’” State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286, 320 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001)). 2025The Tennessee Supreme Court “has often observed that ‘closing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.’” State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286, 320 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001)).	66	69
Smith v. Stategreen tenn · 1975 · cited in 62 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1976–2025 2 sentences 2025Our supreme court has observed that “argument of counsel is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn. 1975). 2024We agree with the State. “[A]rgument of counsel is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn. 1975).	60	62
Terry v. Stategreen tenn · 2001 · cited in 45 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2024 2 sentences 2024Closing argument is “a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn. 2001); see State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411 , 425 -21- (Tenn. 2001); State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726, 737 (Tenn. 1998). 2024Closing argument is “a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 156 ; see Bane, 57 S.W.3d at 425 ; Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 737 .	44	45
State v. Cautherngreen tenn · 1998 · cited in 34 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1997–2024 2 sentences 2024Closing argument is “a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn. 2001); see State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411 , 425 -21- (Tenn. 2001); State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726, 737 (Tenn. 1998). 2024Closing argument is “a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 156 ; see Bane, 57 S.W.3d at 425 ; Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 737 .	34	34
State v. Goltzgreen tenncrimapp · 2003 · cited in 30 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2024 2 sentences 2022While “argument of counsel is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted,” Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn. 1975), “such . . . arguments must be temperate, based upon the evidence introduced at trial, relevant to the issues being tried, and not otherwise improper under the facts or law.” State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. Crim. 2022While “argument of counsel is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted,” Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn. 1975), “such . . . arguments must be temperate, based upon the evidence introduced at trial, relevant to the issues being tried, and not otherwise improper under the facts or law.” State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. Crim.	29	30
State v. Suttongreen tenn · 1978 · cited in 24 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2019 2 sentences 2019Our supreme court “has long recognized that closing arguments are a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tenn. 1978). 2017Although “closing arguments are a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted,” and attorneys are given great leeway in arguing their positions, the trial court has “significant discretion in controlling these arguments, to be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion.” Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tenn. 1978)).	24	24
State v. Bigbeered tenn · 1994 · cited in 20 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1997–2022 2 sentences 2018“Courts have recognized that closing argument is a valuable privilege afforded to the State and the defense and have afforded wide latitude to counsel in arguing their cases to the jury.” State v. Cleveland, 959 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tenn.1997) (citing State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn. 1994)). 2015“Courts have recognized that closing argument is a valuable privilege afforded to the State and the defense and have afforded wide latitude to counsel in arguing their cases to the jury.” State v. Cleveland, 959 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tenn. 1997) (citing State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn. 1994)).	20	20
State v. Cribbsgreen tenn · 1998 · cited in 18 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1998–2012 2 sentences 2012See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn. 1984). 2010See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Cone, 665 S .W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn. 1984).	18	18
State v. Stephensongreen tenn · 2006 · cited in 14 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025 2 sentences 2025The Tennessee Supreme Court has noted that “[c]losing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” State v. Stephenson, 195 S.W.3d 574, 603 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001)). 2023The Tennessee Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that “[c]losing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.” State v. Stephenson, 195 S.W.3d 574, 603 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001)).	14	14
State v. Conegreen tenn · 1984 · cited in 14 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1994–2012 2 sentences 2012See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn. 1984). 2010See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn. 1984).	14	14
Coker v. Stategreen tenncrimapp · 1995 · cited in 12 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2000–2022 2 sentences 2012While “argument of counsel is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted,” Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn.1975), “such[ ] arguments must be temperate, based upon the evidence introduced at trial, relevant to the issues being tried, and 419 not otherwise improper under the facts or law.” State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn.Crim.App.2003); Coker v. State, 911 S.W.2d 357, 368 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995); see also State v. Middlebrooks, 995 S.W.2d 550, 557 (Tenn.1999). 2000*Coker v. State, 911 S.W.2d 357, 368 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995). “[C]losing argument is a valuable privilege for both the [s]tate and the defense”, and counsel is afforded wide latitude in presenting closing argument to the jury.	12	12
State v. Reidgreen tenn · 2005 · cited in 12 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2012–2026 2 sentences 2026The Tennessee Supreme Court “has often observed that ‘closing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.’” State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286, 320 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001)). 2025The Tennessee Supreme Court “has often observed that ‘closing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted.’” State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286, 320 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001)).	10	12
State v. Banksgreen tenn · 2008 · cited in 10 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2009–2025 2 sentences 2025In closing arguments, each side should “present their theory of the case and to point out the strengths and weaknesses in the evidence to the jury.” Banks, 271 S.W.3d at 130 (first citing Christian v. State, 555 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tenn. 1977); and then citing 11 David L. 2022State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 58 (Tenn. 2010); Banks, 271 S.W.3d at 132 & n.30; State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 , 344 n.3 (Tenn. 2005) (appendix); State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 284 (Tenn. 2002); United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 13 (1985) (Supreme Court applied plain-error to review improper closing argument claims where neither party made a timely objection to preserve the issue for review); cf. State v. Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1, 48 (Tenn. 2017) (plenary review applied to two instances of improper prosecutorial comment claims raised for the first time in motion for new trial in capital case). “	8	10
State v. Clevelandgreen tenn · 1997 · cited in 6 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2009–2018 2 sentences 2018“Courts have recognized that closing argument is a valuable privilege afforded to the State and the defense and have afforded wide latitude to counsel in arguing their cases to the jury.” State v. Cleveland, 959 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tenn.1997) (citing State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn. 1994)). 2015“Courts have recognized that closing argument is a valuable privilege afforded to the State and the defense and have afforded wide latitude to counsel in arguing their cases to the jury.” State v. Cleveland, 959 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tenn. 1997) (citing State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn. 1994)).	6	6
Russell v. Stategreen tenn · 1976 · cited in 5 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1999–2025 2 sentences 2025State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. 2024); Russell v. State, 532 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tenn. 1976). 2014State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn. 2001); Russell v. State, 532 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tenn. 1976).	5	5
State v. Seaygreen tenncrimapp · 1996 · cited in 4 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2012–2013 2 sentences 2013The State and the Defendant “must both be given the opportunity to argue the facts in the record and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Seay, 945 S.W.2d 755, 763 (Tenn. Crim. 2013The State and the Defendant “must both be given the opportunity to argue the facts in the record and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Seay, 945 S.W.2d 755, 763 (Tenn. Crim.	4	4
State v. Jordangreen tenn · 2010 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2018–2024 2 sentences 2024However, closing argument “must be temperate, based upon the evidence introduced at trial, relevant to the issues being tried, and not otherwise improper under the facts or law.” Goltz, 111 S.W.3d at 5 ; see Jordan, 325 S.W.3d at 64 . 2022State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 58 (Tenn. 2010); Banks, 271 S.W.3d at 132 & n.30; State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 , 344 n.3 (Tenn. 2005) (appendix); State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 284 (Tenn. 2002); United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 13 (1985) (Supreme Court applied plain-error to review improper closing argument claims where neither party made a timely objection to preserve the issue for review); cf. State v. Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1, 48 (Tenn. 2017) (plenary review applied to two instances of improper prosecutorial comment claims raised for the first time in motion for new trial in capital case). “	3	3
State of Tennessee v. Noura Jacksongreen tenn · 2014 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2017–2021 2 sentences 2021“While closing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted, . . . comment upon a defendant’s exercise of the state and federal constitutional right not to testify should be considered off limits to any conscientious prosecutor.” State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554, 590 (Tenn. 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 2021“While closing argument is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted, . . . comment upon a defendant’s exercise of the state and federal constitutional right not to testify should be considered off limits to any conscientious prosecutor.” Jackson, 444 S.W.3d at 590 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).	3	3
State v. Scarboroughgreen tenncrimapp · 2009 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2014 2 sentences 2014Accordingly, “[a]ttorneys have great -9- leeway in arguing before a jury, and the trial court’s broad discretion in controlling their arguments will be reversed only upon an abuse of discretion.” State v. Scarborough, 300 S.W.3d 717, 731 (Tenn. Crim. 2014Accordingly, “[a]ttorneys have great leeway in arguing before a jury, and the trial court’s broad discretion in controlling their arguments will be reversed only upon an abuse of discretion.” State v. Scarborough, 300 S.W.3d 717, 731 (Tenn. Crim.	3	3
Jones v. Californiagreen scotus · 1998 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn.), cert. denied, -- U.S.--, 119 S.Ct. 343 (1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2400 (1984). 1999See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn.), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 119 S.Ct. 343 (1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2400 (1984).	2	3
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkinsgreen tenn · 2017 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2018–2022 2 sentences 2022State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 58 (Tenn. 2010); Banks, 271 S.W.3d at 132 & n.30; State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 , 344 n.3 (Tenn. 2005) (appendix); State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 284 (Tenn. 2002); United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 13 (1985) (Supreme Court applied plain-error to review improper closing argument claims where neither party made a timely objection to preserve the issue for review); cf. State v. Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1, 48 (Tenn. 2017) (plenary review applied to two instances of improper prosecutorial comment claims raised for the first time in motion for new trial in capital case). “ 2018Such arguments “serve ‘to sharpen and to clarify the issues that must be resolved in a criminal case by enabling the opposing lawyers to present their theory of the case and to point out the strengths and weaknesses in the evidence to the jury.’” State v. Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1, 47 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 130 (Tenn. 2008)).	2	2
State v. Ganngreen tenncrimapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2013 2 sentences 2013However, an attorney’s comments during closing argument “‘must be temperate, must be predicated on evidence introduced during the trial of the case, and must be pertinent to the issues being tried.’” State v. Gann, 251 S.W.3d 446, 459 (Tenn. Crim. 2011However, an attorney’s comments during closing argument “‘must be temperate, must be predicated on evidence introduced during the trial of the case, and must be pertinent to the issues being tried.’” State v. Gann, 251 S.W.3d 446, 459 (Tenn. Crim.	2	2
State v. Middlebrooksgreen tenn · 1999 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2010–2012 2 sentences 2012While “argument of counsel is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted,” Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn.1975), “such[ ] arguments must be temperate, based upon the evidence introduced at trial, relevant to the issues being tried, and 419 not otherwise improper under the facts or law.” State v. Goltz, 111 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn.Crim.App.2003); Coker v. State, 911 S.W.2d 357, 368 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995); see also State v. Middlebrooks, 995 S.W.2d 550, 557 (Tenn.1999). 2010*However, closing argument “must be temperate, predicated on evidence introduced during the trial, relevant to the issues being tried, and not otherwise improper under the facts or law.” State v. Middlebrooks, 995 S.W.2d 550, 557 (Tenn. 1999).	2	2
Christian v. Stategreen tenn · 1977 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025In closing arguments, each side should “present their theory of the case and to point out the strengths and weaknesses in the evidence to the jury.” Banks, 271 S.W.3d at 130 (first citing Christian v. State, 555 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tenn. 1977); and then citing 11 David L.	1	1
State v. Reidgreen tenn · 2002 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 58 (Tenn. 2010); Banks, 271 S.W.3d at 132 & n.30; State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 , 344 n.3 (Tenn. 2005) (appendix); State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 284 (Tenn. 2002); United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 13 (1985) (Supreme Court applied plain-error to review improper closing argument claims where neither party made a timely objection to preserve the issue for review); cf. State v. Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1, 48 (Tenn. 2017) (plenary review applied to two instances of improper prosecutorial comment claims raised for the first time in motion for new trial in capital case). “	1	1
United States v. Younggreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 58 (Tenn. 2010); Banks, 271 S.W.3d at 132 & n.30; State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 , 344 n.3 (Tenn. 2005) (appendix); State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 284 (Tenn. 2002); United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 13 (1985) (Supreme Court applied plain-error to review improper closing argument claims where neither party made a timely objection to preserve the issue for review); cf. State v. Hawkins, 519 S.W.3d 1, 48 (Tenn. 2017) (plenary review applied to two instances of improper prosecutorial comment claims raised for the first time in motion for new trial in capital case). “	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen tenn · 2005 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
State v. Thorntongreen tenncrimapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotsongreen tenn · 2014 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
State v. Halegreen tenn · 1984 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
State v. Keengreen tenn · 1996 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
Cone v. Stategreen tenncrimapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Love v. United States green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2006Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1023 , 122 S.Ct. 553 , 151 L.Ed.2d 428 (2001); State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn.1994) (citations omitted). 2006Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1023 , 122 S.Ct. 553 , 151 L.Ed.2d 428 (2001); State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn.1994) (citations omitted).	2	2004–2006
Terry v. Tennessee green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2006Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1023 , 122 S.Ct. 553 , 151 L.Ed.2d 428 (2001); State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn.1994) (citations omitted). 2006Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1023 , 122 S.Ct. 553 , 151 L.Ed.2d 428 (2001); State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn.1994) (citations omitted).	2	2004–2006
Orange County v. Wood green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1999See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn.), cert. denied, -- U.S.--, 119 S.Ct. 343 (1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2400 (1984). 1999See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn.), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 119 S.Ct. 343 (1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2400 (1984).	2	1999–1999
Co-operative Legislative Committee v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1999See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn.), cert. denied, -- U.S.--, 119 S.Ct. 343 (1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2400 (1984). 1999See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 783 (Tenn.), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 119 S.Ct. 343 (1998); State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2400 (1984).	2	1999–1999
State v. Adkisson green tenncrimapp · 1994	1	2020–2020

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202 (55) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401 (28) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114 (26) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106 (24) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (23) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (23) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204 (22) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-501 (22) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (22) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302 (21) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115 (21) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (20)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 199 (1976–2026) CA 11 (1914–2022) IL 11 (1890–2023) NY 10 (1849–2020) PA 9 (1930–2023) CT 7 (1920–2006) TX 7 (1897–1988) MI 4 (1956–2017) MD 3 (1920–1995) WV 3 (1959–2024) FL 3 (1989–2001) MA 3 (1982–2003) WA 3 (1992–2020) OH 3 (1916–1954) AR 2 (1946–2008) DE 2 (1931–1981) MO 2 (1976–1987) SC 2 (1938–2014) HI 2 (1960–2016) WI 2 (1913–1955) NJ 2 (1952–1958)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check