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.
26 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Yuklgreen2 sentences2025The evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required ( see People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see generally Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 467 [1966]; People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). 2021We reject that contention inasmuch as "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). | 3 | 3 |
Wiedenhaupt v. Hogangreen2 sentences2012The evidence at the Huntley hearing “supports the court’s determination that defendant spontaneously made that statement [inasmuch as] it was not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Cheatom, 57 AD3d 1447, 1447 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 782 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Moss, 89 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]). 2012The evidence at the Huntley hearing “supports the court’s determination that defendant spontaneously made that statement [inasmuch as] it was not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Cheatom, 57 AD3d 1447, 1447 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 782 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Moss, 89 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2012The evidence at the Huntley hearing “supports the court’s determination that defendant spontaneously made that statement [inasmuch as] it was not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Cheatom, 57 AD3d 1447, 1447 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 782 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Moss, 89 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]). 2012The evidence at the Huntley hearing “supports the court’s determination that defendant spontaneously made that statement [inasmuch as] it was not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Cheatom, 57 AD3d 1447, 1447 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 782 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Moss, 89 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Chapplegreen2 sentences2015First, the evidence at the Huntley hearing established that there was a “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation” (People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112, 115 [1975]). 2015First, the evidence at the Huntley hearing established that there was a “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation” (People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112, 115 [1975]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Butlergreen2 sentences2013In arguing otherwise, defendant improperly relies on his testimony at trial (see People v McCurty [appeal No. 2], 60 AD3d 1406,1407 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 856 [2009]). 2013In arguing otherwise, defendant improperly relies on his testimony at trial (see People v McCurty [appeal No. 2], 60 AD3d 1406,1407 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 856 [2009]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Ellisgreen2 sentences2013The fact that defendant was told that he failed a polygraph examination did not render the statement involuntary (see People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; People v Melendez, 149 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1989]). 2013The fact that defendant was told that he failed a polygraph examination did not render the statement involuntary (see People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; People v Melendez, 149 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1989]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2013The fact that defendant was told that he failed a polygraph examination did not render the statement involuntary (see People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; People v Melendez, 149 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1989]). 2013The fact that defendant was told that he failed a polygraph examination did not render the statement involuntary (see People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; People v Melendez, 149 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1989]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Cheatomgreen2 sentences2012The evidence at the Huntley hearing “supports the court’s determination that defendant spontaneously made that statement [inasmuch as] it was not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Cheatom, 57 AD3d 1447, 1447 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 782 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Moss, 89 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]). 2012The evidence at the Huntley hearing “supports the court’s determination that defendant spontaneously made that statement [inasmuch as] it was not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Cheatom, 57 AD3d 1447, 1447 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 782 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Moss, 89 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]). | 2 | 3 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2025The evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required ( see People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see generally Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 467 [1966]; People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). 2018Contrary to the court's conclusion, the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required ( see generally Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 467 [1966]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lundermangreen2 sentences2021Here, upon review of the relevant factors ( see People v Lunderman , 19 AD3d 1067, 1068-1069 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]) and according due deference to the hearing court's credibility determinations ( see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]), we conclude that "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Rounds , 1 2019Here, upon review of the relevant factors ( see People v Lunderman , 19 AD3d 1067, 1068-1069 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]) and giving due deference to the hearing court's credibility determinations ( see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]), we conclude that "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Rounds , 124 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Roundsgreen2 sentences2021Here, upon review of the relevant factors ( see People v Lunderman , 19 AD3d 1067, 1068-1069 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]) and according due deference to the hearing court's credibility determinations ( see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]), we conclude that "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Rounds , 1 2019Here, upon review of the relevant factors ( see People v Lunderman , 19 AD3d 1067, 1068-1069 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]) and giving due deference to the hearing court's credibility determinations ( see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]), we conclude that "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Rounds , 124 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2021We reject that contention inasmuch as "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). 2021Here, upon review of the relevant factors ( see People v Lunderman , 19 AD3d 1067, 1068-1069 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]) and according due deference to the hearing court's credibility determinations ( see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]), we conclude that "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Rounds , 1 | 1 | 4 |
Patterson v. District Court of Oklahomagreen2 sentences2025The evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required ( see People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see generally Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 467 [1966]; People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). 2021We reject that contention inasmuch as "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Scottgreen2 sentences2006“Although we agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that he was not in custody when he gave his second statement, we conclude that the evidence at the Huntley hearing supports the court’s determination that defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, that he waived those rights and that his statement was voluntary” (People v Cunningham, 13 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 [2005], citing People v Scott, 288 AD2d 846, 847 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 761 [2002]). 2004Although we agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that he was not in custody when he gave his second statement, we conclude that the evidence at the Huntley hearing supports the court’s determination that defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, that he waived those rights and that his statement was voluntary (see Scott, 288 AD2d at 847 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Restogreen1 sentence2025Contrary to defendant's further contention in his original brief, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment to afford defense counsel additional time to prepare for trial ( see People v Benton , 167 AD3d 1522 , 1522 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 946 [2019]; People v Resto , 147 AD3d 1331, 1332 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1000 [2017], reconsideration denied 29 NY3d 1094 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fiorettigreen1 sentence2021"The suppression court's credibility determinations and choice between conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record" ( People v Hale , 130 AD3d 1540 , 1541 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1088 [2015], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and, here, we conclude that there is no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the officer over defendant's testimony ( see People v [*2]Fioretti , 155 AD3d 1662, 1664 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stronggreen1 sentence2020Giving due deference to the court's credibility determinations ( see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]), we conclude that the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he requested counsel ( see generally People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; People v Strong , 27 AD3d 1010, 1012 [3d Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cordatogreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mooregreen1 sentence2019The evidence at the Huntley hearing, as credited by the court ( see People v Prochilo , 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Moore , 295 AD2d 969, 969 [4th Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 770 [2002]), established that a police sergeant initially observed defendant's failure to stop his vehicle at a stop sign. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kelleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Leegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Tarsiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ripicgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Colemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Parkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bleakleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Settlesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Molloy
green
2 sentences2013In arguing otherwise, defendant improperly relies on his testimony at trial (see People v McCurty [appeal No. 2], 60 AD3d 1406,1407 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 856 [2009]). 2013In arguing otherwise, defendant improperly relies on his testimony at trial (see People v McCurty [appeal No. 2], 60 AD3d 1406,1407 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 856 [2009]). | 3 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Mateo
green
2 sentences2013Here, the evidence at the Huntley hearing, including the videotaped interrogations, establishes that defendant’s statement was voluntarily made and that coercive police activity did not occur (see Mateo, 2 NY3d at 414 ). 2013Here, the evidence at the Huntley hearing, including the videotaped interrogations, establishes that defendant’s statement was voluntarily made and that coercive police activity did not occur (see Mateo, 2 NY3d at 414 ). | 3 | 2013–2013 |
People v. CULBERO
green
2 sentences2012The evidence at the Huntley hearing “supports the court’s determination that defendant spontaneously made that statement [inasmuch as] it was not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Cheatom, 57 AD3d 1447, 1447 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 782 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Moss, 89 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]). 2012The evidence at the Huntley hearing “supports the court’s determination that defendant spontaneously made that statement [inasmuch as] it was not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Cheatom, 57 AD3d 1447, 1447 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 782 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Moss, 89 AD3d 1526 , 1527 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]). | 3 | 2012–2012 |
People v. McNeil
green
2 sentences2021Here, upon review of the relevant factors ( see People v Lunderman , 19 AD3d 1067, 1068-1069 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]) and according due deference to the hearing court's credibility determinations ( see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]), we conclude that "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Rounds , 1 2019Here, upon review of the relevant factors ( see People v Lunderman , 19 AD3d 1067, 1068-1069 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]) and giving due deference to the hearing court's credibility determinations ( see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]), we conclude that "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Rounds , 124 | 2 | 2019–2021 |
People v. GARZONE
green
2 sentences2013The fact that defendant was told that he failed a polygraph examination did not render the statement involuntary (see People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; People v Melendez, 149 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1989]). 2013The fact that defendant was told that he failed a polygraph examination did not render the statement involuntary (see People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; People v Melendez, 149 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1989]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Nahshal
green
1 sentence2025Contrary to defendant's further contention in his original brief, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment to afford defense counsel additional time to prepare for trial ( see People v Benton , 167 AD3d 1522 , 1522 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 946 [2019]; People v Resto , 147 AD3d 1331, 1332 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1000 [2017], reconsideration denied 29 NY3d 1094 [2017]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Oliveri
green
1 sentence2025Contrary to defendant's further contention in his original brief, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment to afford defense counsel additional time to prepare for trial ( see People v Benton , 167 AD3d 1522 , 1522 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 946 [2019]; People v Resto , 147 AD3d 1331, 1332 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1000 [2017], reconsideration denied 29 NY3d 1094 [2017]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Witherspoon
green
1 sentence2021"The suppression court's credibility determinations and choice between conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record" ( People v Hale , 130 AD3d 1540 , 1541 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1088 [2015], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and, here, we conclude that there is no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the officer over defendant's testimony ( see People v [*2]Fioretti , 155 AD3d 1662, 1664 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Velasquez
green
1 sentence2021"The suppression court's credibility determinations and choice between conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record" ( People v Hale , 130 AD3d 1540 , 1541 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1088 [2015], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and, here, we conclude that there is no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the officer over defendant's testimony ( see People v [*2]Fioretti , 155 AD3d 1662, 1664 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Hale
green
1 sentence2021"The suppression court's credibility determinations and choice between conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record" ( People v Hale , 130 AD3d 1540 , 1541 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1088 [2015], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and, here, we conclude that there is no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the officer over defendant's testimony ( see People v [*2]Fioretti , 155 AD3d 1662, 1664 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Ferrer
green
1 sentence2021"The suppression court's credibility determinations and choice between conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record" ( People v Hale , 130 AD3d 1540 , 1541 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1088 [2015], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and, here, we conclude that there is no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the officer over defendant's testimony ( see People v [*2]Fioretti , 155 AD3d 1662, 1664 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. DELAROSA
green
1 sentence2019Specifically, the evidence establishes, inter alia, that defendant was told at the start of the interview that he was not under arrest and would be going home that day ( see Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d at 1559; People v Cordato , 85 AD3d 1304, 1309 [3d Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 815 [2011]), and the recording of the interview belies defendant's contention that he was in handcuffs when he was placed in the interview room. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. West green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Hobson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Marrero green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. DaCOSTA green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. Cunningham green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. Charles green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Lights green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Everett green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Horne green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Sampson green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Taylor green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Vallejos neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Allnutt green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Wittenberg Distributors, Inc. v. Kuhns Brothers & Laidlaw, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Green v. United States green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People v. Huffman green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People v. Dabney green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Hauswirth green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Sease neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Hauswirth green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Rivers green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Geoghegan green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Thomas green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.