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.
187 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2024 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Captvillegreen2 sentences2013Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). 2013Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). | 15 | 15 |
State v. Nealgreen2 sentences2013Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). 2013Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). | 15 | 15 |
State v. Burrowgreen2 sentences1996In State v. Burrow, 565 So.2d 972, 976 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990), writ denied, 572 So.2d 60 (La.1991), the court set forth the standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence as follows: *1263 The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence, enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 1996LAW AND ARGUMENT In State v. Burrow, 565 So.2d 972 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990), writ denied, 572 So.2d 60 (La. 1991), this court set forth the standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence as follows: The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence, enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. | 2 | 5 |
Taylor v. Premier Insurancegreen2 sentences2018Co. , 98-1935, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/30/99), 742 So.2d 35 , 40 (citations omitted). 2001Co., 98-1935, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/30/99); 742 So.2d 35, 40 (citations omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Bennettgreen2 sentences1996In State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129, 1138 (La.1977), the Court set forth factors which the trial court must take into consideration when determining whether a defendant is competent to proceed: Appropriate considerations in determining whether the accused is fully aware of the nature of the proceedings include: whether he understands the nature of the charge and can appreciate its seriousness; whether he understands what defenses are available; whether he can distinguish a guilty plea from a not guilty plea and understand the consequences of each; whether he has an awareness of his legal right 1994In State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129, 1138 (La.1977), the Court set forth factors which the trial court must take into consideration when determining whether a defendant is competent to proceed: Appropriate considerations in determining whether the accused is fully aware of the nature of the proceedings include: whether he understands the nature of the charge and can appreciate its seriousness; whether he understands what defenses are available; whether he can distinguish a guilty plea from a not guilty plea and understand the consequences of each; whether he has an awareness of his legal right | 2 | 3 |
| State, in Interest of Mlgreen | 2 | 2 |
| STATE, DOTD v. Williamsongreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Thorntongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Sibley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State Universitygreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Lovegreen | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2016This court set forth the standard for determining if the State adequately proved identity in State v. Stewart, 2004-2219, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/29/05), 909 So.2d 636 , 639: |iaWhen identity is disputed, the State must negate any reasonable probability of misidentification in order to satisfy its burden under Jackson v. Virginia [ 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)]. 2016This court set forth the standard for determining if the State adequately proved identity in State v. Stewart, 2004-2219, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/29/05), 909 So.2d 636 , 639: |iaWhen identity is disputed, the State must negate any reasonable probability of misidentification in order to satisfy its burden under Jackson v. Virginia [ 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)]. | 1 | 49 |
State v. Jamesgreen2 sentences1994In State v. James, 581 So.2d 349 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991), this court set forth the standard of review of the issuance of a search warrant: C.Cr.P. art. 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued "only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts and establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant." The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that probable cause exists when: the facts and circumstances within the affiant's knowledge, and those of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to sup 1994In State v. James, 581 So.2d 349 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991), this court set forth the standard of review of the issuance of a search warrant: C.Cr.P. art. 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued "only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts and establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant." The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that probable cause exists when: the facts and circumstances within the affiant's knowledge, and those of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to sup | 1 | 4 |
State v. Crawfordgreen2 sentences2005This court set forth the standard for determining the merits of a Brady claim in State v. Crawford, 2002-2048, pp. 10-11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/03) , 848 So.2d 615, 623-624 [1] : To comport with the dictates of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the State must disclose to the defense evidence that is favorable to the defense and is material to guilt or punishment. 2004In State v. Crawford, 2002-2048, pp. 10-11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/03) , 848 So.2d 615 , 623-624 1 this Court set forth the standard for determining the merits of a Brady claim: To comport with the dictates of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the State must disclose to the defense evidence that is favorable to the defense and is material to guilt or punishment. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Ashgreen2 sentences2001App. 4 Cir. 2/10/99), 729 So.2d 664, 667-68 , this Court set forth the standard of review applicable to a claim that the evidence produced was constitutionally insufficient to support a conviction: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2001In State v. Ash, 97-2061, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/10/99), 729 So.2d 664, 667 , this court set forth the standard of review applicable to a claim that, the evidence produced was constitutionally insufficient to support a conviction: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Heckgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 2 |
| Roberts v. Sewerage and Water Bd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Tarifa v. Riessgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tarifa v. Riessgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carter v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Developmentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Housley v. Cerisegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2023We disagree. 22 In State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 7 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4 , the Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. 2013In State v. Smith, 2001-2574, pp. 6-7 (La.1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4 , the Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. | 16 | 2006–2023 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2013In State v. Brown, 03-0897, p. 22 (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 1, 18 , the Court set forth the standard for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2013Mr. Martin contends that the State failed to prove that he killed Mr. Perkins. 2 In State v. Brown, 03-0897, p. 22 (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 1, 18 , the Court set forth the standard for examining a claim of insufficiency of evidence: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). | 15 | 2005–2013 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2013In State v. Clark, 01-2087, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02), 828 So.2d 1173, 1183 , this court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument “shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case. 2011People turn around and he shoots them in the back as a cold blooded murderer.” In State v. Clark, 2001-2087, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02), 828 So.2d 1173, 1183 , this Court set forth the standard for determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks are so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial: The scope of closing argument “shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case. | 9 | 2006–2013 |
State v. Rosiere
green
2 sentences2011Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789[, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ]; State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965 (La.1986). 2000Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789[, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)]; State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965 (La.1986). | 9 | 1995–2011 |
State v. Landry
green
2 sentences2014This Court previously set out the standard of review for an excessive sentence: In State v. Landry, 20031671 pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4th Cir. 3/31/04) 871 So.2d 1235, 1239 , the Court set forth a standard of review for excessive sentencing claims: La. 2013In State v. Landry, 2003-1671, pp. 7-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/31/04), 871 So.2d 1235, 1239-40 , this Court set forth the standard for reviewing an excessive sentence claim: La. | 8 | 2010–2014 |
Walters v. Dept. of Police of New Orleans
green
2 sentences2012Walters v. Department of Police of the City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La.1984). 2007Walters v. Department of Police of the City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La.1984). | 7 | 2001–2012 |
Smith v. New Orleans Police Dept.
green
2 sentences2012The law is, in my view, quite clear and is summarized by the following quote from Stevens v. Dept. of Police, 00-1682, pp. 4-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/9/01), 789 So.2d 622 , 625-27: In Smith v. New Orleans Police Department, 99-0024, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/22/99), 743 So.2d 834, 837-838 , writ denied, 99-3242 (La.1/14/00), 753 So.2d 221 , this Court set forth the standard of appellate review regarding civil service disciplinary cases as.follows: In civil service disciplinary cases, an appellate court is presented with a multifaceted review function. 2007In Smith v. New Orleans Police Department, 99-0024, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/22/99), 743 So.2d 834, 837-38 , this court set forth the standard of appellate review regarding civil service disciplinary cases: In civil service disciplinary cases, an appellate court is presented with a multifaceted review function. | 7 | 2001–2012 |
State v. Freeman
green
2 sentences2006In Stale v. Freeman, 01-997, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/01), 801 So.2d 578, 580 , this court set forth the standard for insufficiency claims: When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light, most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 2006In State v. Freeman, 01-997, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/01), 801 So.2d 578, 580 , this court set forth the standard for insufficiency claims: When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | 7 | 2006–2006 |
Smith v. New Orleans Police Dept.
neutral
2 sentences2012The law is, in my view, quite clear and is summarized by the following quote from Stevens v. Dept. of Police, 00-1682, pp. 4-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/9/01), 789 So.2d 622 , 625-27: In Smith v. New Orleans Police Department, 99-0024, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/22/99), 743 So.2d 834, 837-838 , writ denied, 99-3242 (La.1/14/00), 753 So.2d 221 , this Court set forth the standard of appellate review regarding civil service disciplinary cases as.follows: In civil service disciplinary cases, an appellate court is presented with a multifaceted review function. 2005In Smith v. New Orleans Police Department, 99-0024, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/22/99), 743 So.2d 834, 837-38 , writ denied, 99-3242 (La.1/14/00), 753 So.2d 221 , this court set forth the standard of appellate review regarding civil service disciplinary cases as follows: In civil service disciplinary cases, an appellate court is presented with a multifaceted review function. | 6 | 2001–2012 |
State v. Barling
green
2 sentences2010In State v. Barling, 00-1241, 01-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court set forth the standard for reviewing excessive sentence claims: [Louisiana Constitution Article 1], § 20 guarantees that, “[n]o law shall subject any person to cruel or unusual punishment.” To constitute |aan excessive sentence, the reviewing court must find the penalty so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribu *1178 tion to acceptable penal g 2009In State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court set forth the standard for reviewing excessive sentence claims: La. | 5 | 2007–2010 |
State v. Barling
green
2 sentences2010In State v. Barling, 00-1241, 01-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court set forth the standard for reviewing excessive sentence claims: [Louisiana Constitution Article 1], § 20 guarantees that, “[n]o law shall subject any person to cruel or unusual punishment.” To constitute |aan excessive sentence, the reviewing court must find the penalty so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribu *1178 tion to acceptable penal g 2009In State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court set forth the standard for reviewing excessive sentence claims: La. | 5 | 2007–2010 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences1996State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965 (La.1986); State v. Davis, 540 So.2d 600 ([La.App.] 5th Cir.1989). 1996State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965 (La. 1986); State v. Davis, 540 So.2d 600 (5th Cir.1989). | 5 | 1995–1996 |
State v. Burrow
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Burrow, 565 So.2d 972, 976 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990), writ denied, 572 So.2d 60 (La.1991), the court set forth the standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence as follows: *1263 The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence, enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 1996LAW AND ARGUMENT In State v. Burrow, 565 So.2d 972 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990), writ denied, 572 So.2d 60 (La. 1991), this court set forth the standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence as follows: The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence, enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. | 5 | 1995–1996 |
State v. Duncan
green
2 sentences1994State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982). 1994State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982). | 5 | 1993–1994 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2005Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); State v. Porter, 98-0279 (La. 2005Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); State v. Porter, 98-0279 (La. | 4 | 1990–2005 |
Ames v. Ohle
green
2 sentences2022App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 97 So.3d 386, 390-91 , this court set forth the standard of review applicable to a peremptory exception of prescription as follows: Ordinarily, a party asserting a peremptory exception of prescription bears the burden of proof. 2018App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 97 So.3d 386 , 390-91, this court set forth the standard of review for such exceptions as follows: Ordinarily, a party asserting a peremptory exception of prescription bears the burden of proof. | 3 | 2018–2022 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences2015Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991). 2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991). | 3 | 1998–2015 |
State Ex Rel. Km
green
2 sentences2014App. 4 Cir. 9/29/10), 49 So.3d 460 , this Court set forth the standard of review in a juvenile delinquency case as follows: In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2014R.S. 14:35 defines simple battery as “a battery committed without the consent of the victim.” In State ex rel K.M., 2010-0649, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/29/10), 49 So.3d 460 , 463-464, this Court set forth the standard of review in a juvenile delinquency case as follows: In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. | 3 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Lambert
green
2 sentences2014With regard to sufficiency of the evidence, this court set forth the standard to be used in State v. Lambert, 97-64, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/30/98), 720 So.2d 724 , 726-27: When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 2013With regard to sufficiency of the evidence, this court set forth the standard to be used in State v. Lambert, 97-64, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/30/98), 720 So.2d 724 , 726-27: When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2000In State v. Smith, 94-1502, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/95); 649 So.2d 1078, 1081 , this court set forth the standard for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a defendant's conviction when it stated: The standard for reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 1998In State v. Smith, 94-1502, p. 2 (La.App. 4th Cir 1/19/95), 649 So.2d 1078, 1081 , this court set forth the standard for an appellate review of the sufficiency of evidence to support a defendant’s conviction: The standard for reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | 3 | 1998–2000 |
State v. Sterling
green
2 sentences1996The evidence, of course, must also be relevant for some purpose, and a balance must be struck between the evidentiary value of the photograph and its tendency to overwhelm reason and to associate the accused with the atrocity without sufficient evidence, State v. Sterling, 377 So.2d 58 (1979). 1992The evidence, of course, must also be relevant for some purpose, and a balance must be struck between the evidentiary value of the photograph and its tendency to overwhelm reason and to associate the accused with the atrocity without sufficient evidence, State v. Sterling, 377 So.2d 58 (La.1979). | 3 | 1987–1996 |
| State v. Dean green | 3 | 1987–1996 |
| State v. Jacobs green | 3 | 1991–1992 |
| State v. Heck green | 3 | 1991–1992 |
| State ex rel. D.S. neutral | 2 | 2015–2024 |
| Sommer v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. DEVELOPMENT green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Trepagnier green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| Margaret Fisk Munro v. British American Oil Producing Co. green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Stewart green | 2 | 2013–2016 |
| Manson v. Brathwaite green | 2 | 1993–2016 |
| Illinois v. Gates green | 2 | 2008–2010 |
| State v. Campbell green | 2 | 2006–2010 |
| State v. Price green | 2 | 2005–2009 |
| Southern Railway Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. green | 2 | 2008–2009 |
| Layssard v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS neutral | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| Layssard v. STATE, DEPART. OF PUBLIC SAFETY neutral | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Blanton neutral | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| State v. Thompson green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| State v. Bickham green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
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.