modern doctrine (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

modern doctrine in Colorado

31 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2023 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 (20)

CaseFollowedCited
Gray v. Bryantgreen
fla · 1960 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2004–2008
2 sentences

2008In describing the modern presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-executing, the Florida Supreme Court explained that, without such a presumption, “the legislature would have the power to nullify the will of the people expressed in their constitution,.... ” Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960).

2004E.g., Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960) (noting that "the modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating"); Russell, 101 N.E.2d at 291 (stating that "the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing"); Beatty v. Wittekamp, 171 S.C. 326 , 172 S.E. 122, 125 (1933) (declaring that "[t]he general presumption of law is that all constitutional provisions are self-executing"); see generally 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 100 (1998).

22
Mamalis v. Bornovasgreen
nh · 1972 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1974–1981
2 sentences

1981Bradley v. Mann, 34 Colo.App. 135 , 525 P.2d 492 ; Accord, Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423 , 297 A.2d 660 .

1981Bradley v. Mann, 34 Colo.App. 135 , 525 P.2d 492 ; Accord, Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423 , 297 A.2d 660 .

22
Kashiya Nwanguma v. Donald Trumpgreen
ca6 · 2018 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Nwanguma v. Trump, 903 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2018); accord Bible Believers v. Wayne Cnty., 805 F.3d 228, 246 (6th Cir. 2015).18 3.

11
Bible Believers v. Wayne Countygreen
ca6 · 2015 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Nwanguma v. Trump, 903 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2018); accord Bible Believers v. Wayne Cnty., 805 F.3d 228, 246 (6th Cir. 2015).18 3.

11
Wagner v. Fairlambgreen
colo · 1963 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021Wagner v. Fairlamb, 151 Colo. 481, 487 , 379 P.2d 165, 169 (1963).

2021Wagner v. Fairlamb, 151 Colo. 481, 487 , 379 P.2d 165, 169 (1963).

11
State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hessgreen
minn · 2004 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif

11
The Riverton Country Club v. Thomasgreen
njch · 1948 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif

2015Eq. 435 , 58 A.2d 89, 96 (N.J.

11
Youngers v. Schafergreen
minn · 1936 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif

2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif

11
Price v. Johnsongreen
nm · 1967 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Ass'n, 120 Ky. 413 , 86 S.W. 1111, 1112 (1905) ("[Rleservations or exceptions are enforced, although contained in the habendum clause of the deed, as fully as if set out in the granting clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficient ly expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123 , 428 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted," but still finding that in light of "the modern rule" the reservation in the habendum at issue was not

2015Ass'n, 120 Ky. 413 , 86 S.W. 1111, 1112 (1905) ("[Rleservations or exceptions are enforced, although contained in the habendum clause of the deed, as fully as if set out in the granting clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficient ly expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123 , 428 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted," but still finding that in light of "the modern rule" the reservation in the habendum at issue was not

11
Mitchell v. Espinosagreen
colo · 1952 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif

2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif

11
In Re Estate of Fleckgreen
iowa · 1967 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif

2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif

11
O'BRIEN v. Village Land Co.green
colo · 1990 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015T23 Based on Mitchell and other authorities cited above, wey, like the district court, determine that the 1950 Deeds unambiguously reserved to the Plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interests the mineral rights in Tracts A-D in the land later conveyed to the Furrow Defendants' predecessor-in-interest, Hubert A. Brown. | 1 24 In so concluding, we necessarily reject the Furrow Defendants' reliance on the distinction between a "granting clause" and a "warranty clause" made in O'Brien v. Village Land Co., 794 P.2d 246, 251 (Colo.1990).

11
Jones v. American Ass'ngreen
kyctapp · 1905 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Ass'n, 120 Ky. 413 , 86 S.W. 1111, 1112 (1905) ("[Rleservations or exceptions are enforced, although contained in the habendum clause of the deed, as fully as if set out in the granting clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficient ly expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123 , 428 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted," but still finding that in light of "the modern rule" the reservation in the habendum at issue was not

2015Ass'n, 120 Ky. 413 , 86 S.W. 1111, 1112 (1905) ("[Rleservations or exceptions are enforced, although contained in the habendum clause of the deed, as fully as if set out in the granting clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficient ly expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123 , 428 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted," but still finding that in light of "the modern rule" the reservation in the habendum at issue was not

11
Carlson v. McCoygreen
colo · 1977 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187, 214 (Colo.1984); Carlson v. McCoy, 193 Colo. 391, 393-94 , 566 P.2d 1073, 1075 (1977).

2008Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187, 214 (Colo.1984); Carlson v. McCoy, 193 Colo. 391, 393-94 , 566 P.2d 1073, 1075 (1977).

11
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc.green
colo · 1984 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187, 214 (Colo.1984); Carlson v. McCoy, 193 Colo. 391, 393-94 , 566 P.2d 1073, 1075 (1977).

11
Nos. 97-5735, 97-5736green
ca3 · 1999 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 177 F.3d 210, 220 (3d Cir.1999), “If there is no final judgment outstanding into which the defense of lack of jurisdiction can merge and proceedings are continuing; res judicata [and collateral estoppel do] not operate to -bar consideration of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court.” See also In re Marriage of Mallon, supra (noting that the modern rule gives finality substantially greater weight than validity).

11
Beatty v. Wittekampgreen
· 1933 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004E.g., Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960) (noting that "the modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating"); Russell, 101 N.E.2d at 291 (stating that "the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing"); Beatty v. Wittekamp, 171 S.C. 326 , 172 S.E. 122, 125 (1933) (declaring that "[t]he general presumption of law is that all constitutional provisions are self-executing"); see generally 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 100 (1998).

2004E.g., Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960) (noting that "the modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating"); Russell, 101 N.E.2d at 291 (stating that "the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing"); Beatty v. Wittekamp, 171 S.C. 326 , 172 S.E. 122, 125 (1933) (declaring that "[t]he general presumption of law is that all constitutional provisions are self-executing"); see generally 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 100 (1998).

11
Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bankgreen
scotus · 1940 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 375 , 60 S.Ct. 317, 319 , 84 L.Ed. 329, 333 (1939) (“it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principal of absolute retroactivity cannot be justified.”).

1993Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 375 , 60 S.Ct. 317, 319 , 84 L.Ed. 329, 333 (1939) (“it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principal of absolute retroactivity cannot be justified.”).

11
Moore v. Stategreen
mdctspecapp · 1974 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
11
State v. Vladovicgreen
wash · 1983 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (33)

CaseCitedYears
Bradley v. Mann green
coloctapp · 1974
2 sentences

1981Bradley v. Mann, 34 Colo.App. 135 , 525 P.2d 492 ; Accord, Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423 , 297 A.2d 660 .

1981Bradley v. Mann, 34 Colo.App. 135 , 525 P.2d 492 ; Accord, Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423 , 297 A.2d 660 .

21974–1981
Kahn v. Herman neutral
ga · 1847
2 sentences

1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 .

1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 .

21913–1913
Miltonvale State Bank v. Kuhnle neutral
kan · 1893
2 sentences

1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 .

1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 .

21913–1913
Lyne v. Sanford green
· 1891
2 sentences

1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 .

1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 .

21913–1913
Ogden & Johnson v. Bosse green
· 1894
2 sentences

1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 .

1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 .

21913–1913
Miller v. Murray neutral
colo · 1892
2 sentences

1896Miller et al. v. Murray, 17 Colo. 408 ; Jones, Admr., v. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417 .

1896Miller et al. v. Murray, 17 Colo. 408 ; Jones, Admr., v. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417 .

21896–1896
Jones v. Pearl Mining Co. neutral
· 1894
2 sentences

1896Miller et al. v. Murray, 17 Colo. 408 ; Jones, Admr., v. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417 .

1896Miller et al. v. Murray, 17 Colo. 408 ; Jones, Admr., v. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417 .

21896–1896
Apprendi v. New Jersey green
scotus · 2000
2 sentences

2010The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments demand that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the pre-seribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .

2010The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments demand that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the pre-seribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .

12010–2010
People v. Gutierrez green
colo · 1981
2 sentences

2009Such a reading is consistent with People v. Gutierrez, 622 P.2d 547 (Colo.1981), where we enumerated the modern standard for motions *711 for new trials based on newly discovered evidence.

2009Such a reading is consistent with People v. Gutierrez, 622 P.2d 547 (Colo.1981), where we enumerated the modern standard for mo tions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence.

12009–2009
Castle Associates v. Schwartz green
nyappdiv · 1978
2 sentences

2008Castle Assocs. v. Schwartz, 407 N.Y.S.2d at 723 . 12 Castle Associates is the first modern statement of this rule, and it has been followed in numerous jurisdictions. 13 The easement in Castle Associates was expressly created by deed in 1903 for ingress and egress across a piece of property, but the location of the easement was not specifically identified in the conveyance.

2008Castle Assocs. v. Schwartz, 407 N.Y.S.2d at 723 . [12] *1272 Castle Associates is the first modern statement of this rule, and it has been followed in numerous jurisdictions. [13] The easement in Castle Associates was expressly created by deed in 1903 for ingress and egress across a piece of property, but the location of the easement was not specifically identified in the conveyance.

12008–2008
In Re the Marriage of Mallon green
coloctapp · 1998
1 sentence

2005As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 177 F.3d 210, 220 (3d Cir.1999), “If there is no final judgment outstanding into which the defense of lack of jurisdiction can merge and proceedings are continuing; res judicata [and collateral estoppel do] not operate to -bar consideration of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court.” See also In re Marriage of Mallon, supra (noting that the modern rule gives finality substantially greater weight than validity).

12005–2005
O'BRIEN v. Plumides green
ncctapp · 1986
2 sentences

1994Under this “modern rule,” a client’s discharge of his or her attorney is not considered a breach of contract since “it is a basic term of the contract, implied by law into it by reason of the special relationship between the contracting parties, that the client may terminate the contract at will.” O’Brien v. Plumides, 79 N.C.App. at 161 , 339 S.E.2d at 55 .

1994Under this “modern rule,” a client’s discharge of his or her attorney is not considered a breach of contract since “it is a basic term of the contract, implied by law into it by reason of the special relationship between the contracting parties, that the client may terminate the contract at will.” O’Brien v. Plumides, 79 N.C.App. at 161 , 339 S.E.2d at 55 .

11994–1994
Glisan v. Smolenske green
colo · 1963
11980–1980
Carpenter v. Donohoe green
colo · 1964
11980–1980
Dunphy v. Dunphy green
cal · 1911
11950–1950
Millage v. Churchill green
colo · 1921
11946–1946
State v. Patterson green
mo · 1881
11927–1927
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Read neutral
la · 1897
11925–1925
Knight v. Pottgieser neutral
ill · 1898
11924–1924
Mulvane v. Rude green
ind · 1896
11924–1924
Rochester & Charlotte Turnpike Road Co. v. Paviour green
ny · 1900
11922–1922
Johnson v. Barden green
vt · 1912
11921–1921
Cary Hardware Co. v. McCarty green
· 1897
11915–1915
People v. Martínez León green
prsupreme · 1936
11915–1915
State v. Patterson. neutral
nc · 1904
11914–1914
Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes green
mass · 1898
11913–1913
Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. Winsor green
scotus · 1874
11913–1913
Fisheries Co. v. Lennen neutral
circtdct · 1902
11913–1913
Harrison v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co. green
ca7 · 1902
11913–1913
Diamond Match Co. v. . Roeber green
ny · 1887
11913–1913
People ex rel. Davis v. Common Council green
mich · 1875
11913–1913
Henry v. Hand green
· 1899
11913–1913
Swigert & Howard v. Tilden green
iowa · 1903
11913–1913

Where else courts name it

CA 141 (1885–2026) NY 88 (1806–2025) PA 79 (1855–2024) IN 60 (1874–2024) MO 59 (1892–2025) IL 53 (1868–2013) TX 48 (1913–2022) TN 41 (1875–2025) IA 41 (1871–2021) MD 40 (1964–2025) MI 40 (1879–2023) NC 39 (1893–2022) WA 38 (1901–2024) CT 36 (1917–2022) KY 36 (1857–2025) OH 33 (1894–2026) AL 32 (1876–2026) CO 31 (1896–2023) NJ 31 (1832–2025) AZ 31 (1922–2018) OK 30 (1913–2004) KS 29 (1893–2024) WV 28 (1893–2013) VA 24 (1882–2026) NM 24 (1904–2024) OR 21 (1871–2014) WI 20 (1900–2021) FL 20 (1931–2017) LA 17 (1871–2020) MS 17 (1904–1998) MA 17 (1906–2025) NE 16 (1888–1981) MN 15 (1875–2024) DC 12 (1976–2011) ND 12 (1893–1980) DE 11 (1900–2018) HI 11 (1921–2011) ME 11 (1903–2020) AR 10 (1907–2010) UT 9 (1912–2019) MT 9 (1899–1936) SC 9 (1927–2023) WY 8 (1933–2013) GA 8 (1848–2010) AK 8 (1970–2011) ID 7 (1909–1992) SD 7 (1890–2007) NH 6 (1974–2024) VT 5 (1932–2025) RI 5 (1901–1983) NV 4 (1910–1932) VI 2 (1991–1998)

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