granting privilege in District of Columbia

25 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1951–2026 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 (26)

Case	Followed	Cited
Gooding v. United Statesgreen dc · 1987 · cited in 10 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1991–2026 2 sentences 2023See, e.g., Gooding, 529 A.2d at 311 ; see also id. at 306 (stating that such a motion should be granted “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just” (quoting Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 (1927))). 28 Mr. Edwards’s effort to withdraw his plea. 2023See, e.g., Gooding, 529 A.2d at 311 ; see also id. at 306 (stating that such a motion should be granted “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just” (quoting Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 (1927))). 28 Mr. Edwards’s effort to withdraw his plea.	7	10
Springs v. United Statesgreen dc · 1992 · cited in 5 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2004–2026 2 sentences 2026Presentence motions to withdraw are “regarded more 3 leniently” than post-sentence motions and are “given favorable consideration ‘if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.’” White v. United States, 863 A.2d 839, 841 (D.C. 2004) (quoting Springs v. United States, 614 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1992)). 2023A presentence motion to withdraw is “regarded more leniently” and should be considered favorably “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” White v. United States, 863 A.2d 839, 841-42 (D.C. 2004) (quoting Springs v. United States, 614 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1992)); Super.	5	5
Taylor v. United Statesgreen dc · 1976 · cited in 4 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1995 2 sentences 1995Appellant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty before sentencing; therefore, the motion is reviewed under a more lenient standard which permits withdrawal “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927), cited in Gooding, supra, 529 A.2d at 306 , and Taylor v. United States, 366 A.2d 444, 447 (D.C.1976) (per curiam). 1987In such cases, a presentence withdrawal motion is regarded much more leniently and should be granted “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927); see also Taylor v. United States, 366 A.2d 444, 447 (D.C.1976) (per curiam); Jordan v. United States, 350 A.2d 735, 737 (D.C.1976).	3	4
William L. Poole v. United Statesgreen cadc · 1957 · cited in 3 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1986–1997 2 sentences 1997D.C. 71, 75, 250 F.2d 396, 400 (1957)). 1997D.C. 71, 75, 250 F.2d 396, 400 (1957)).	3	3
Jordan v. United Statesgreen dc · 1976 · cited in 3 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1987 2 sentences 1987In such cases, a presentence withdrawal motion is regarded much more leniently and should be granted “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927); see also Taylor v. United States, 366 A.2d 444, 447 (D.C.1976) (per curiam); Jordan v. United States, 350 A.2d 735, 737 (D.C.1976). 1987In such cases, a presentence withdrawal motion is regarded much more leniently and should be granted "if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just." Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927); see also Taylor v. United States, 366 A.2d 444, 447 (D.C.1976) (per curiam); Jordan v. United States, 350 A.2d 735, 737 (D.C.1976).	3	3
Kercheval v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1927 · cited in 12 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1976–2023 2 sentences 2023See, e.g., Gooding, 529 A.2d at 311 ; see also id. at 306 (stating that such a motion should be granted “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just” (quoting Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 (1927))). 28 Mr. Edwards’s effort to withdraw his plea. 2003If a motion to withdraw guilty pleas is filed prior to sentencing, 8 the court will permit withdrawal “ ‘if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.’ ” Gooding, supra, 529 A.2d at 301 , 306 (quoting Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927)).	2	12
White v. United Statesgreen dc · 2004 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2023–2026 2 sentences 2026Presentence motions to withdraw are “regarded more 3 leniently” than post-sentence motions and are “given favorable consideration ‘if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.’” White v. United States, 863 A.2d 839, 841 (D.C. 2004) (quoting Springs v. United States, 614 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1992)). 2023A presentence motion to withdraw is “regarded more leniently” and should be considered favorably “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” White v. United States, 863 A.2d 839, 841-42 (D.C. 2004) (quoting Springs v. United States, 614 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1992)); Super.	2	2
Pettiford v. United Statesgreen dc · 1997 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2002–2026 2 sentences 2002When a motion to withdraw is made prior to sentencing, as it was here, the motion should be granted “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 2002When a motion to withdraw is made prior to sentencing, as it was here, the motion should be granted "if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just." Id. (internal quotations omitted).	1	2
Binion v. United Statesgreen dc · 1995 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1997–2007 2 sentences 2007Menna and Blackledge do not dictate that in this circumstance the defendant must be able to bring a freestanding appeal of the competency determination as though he had never pled guilty. 8 .See Edwards v. United States, 766 A.2d 981 , 988 n. 10 (D.C.2001) (noting that a post- 763 sentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed under the stringent "manifest injustice” standard rather than under the more liberal "if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just” standard applicable to a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a plea); Binion v. United States, 658 A.2d 187, 1997*Because appellant here moved to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing, "the motion is reviewed under a more lenient standard which permits withdrawal `if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.'" Id. at 191 (quoting Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927)). [8] "`Leave to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing should be freely allowed.'" Gooding, supra note 8, 529 A.2d at 306 (quoting Poole v. United States, 102 U.S.App.	1	2
Carmichael v. United Statesgreen dc · 1984 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2004–2007 2 sentences 2007We have held that “[i]f it appears that a defendant [who has filed a Rule 32(e) motion] ... did not knowingly plead, then 'manifest injustice' warranting withdrawal of the plea will generally be found.” Carmichael, 479 A.2d at 327 . 2004While motions to withdraw a guilty plea which are made after sentencing are subject to the “manifest injustice” standard of 32(e) of the Superior Court Criminal Rules, Morrison v. United States, 579 A.2d 686, 689 (D.C.1990) (quoting Carmichael v. United States, 479 A.2d 325, 327 (D.C.1984)), a motion to withdraw a guilty plea made before sentencing is regarded more leniently and is given favorable consideration “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Springs v. United States, 614 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C.1992) (quoting Gooding v. United, States, 529 A.2d 301, 306 (D.C.1987	1	2
United States v. Walter I. Joslingreen cadc · 1970 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1976–1982 2 sentences 1982Jordan v. United States, D.C.App., 350 A.2d 735, 737 (1976); accord, Taylor v. United States, D.C.App., 366 A.2d 444, 447 (1976); Bettis v. United States, D.C.App., 325 A.2d 190, 195 (1974); United States v. Joslin, supra at 257, 434 F.2d at 531 , and the motion will be granted if "the granting of the privilege seems fair and just." Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). 1982Jordan v. United States, D.C.App., 350 A.2d 735, 737 (1976); accord, Taylor v. United States, D.C.App., 366 A.2d 444, 447 (1976); Bettis v. United States, D.C.App., 325 A.2d 190, 195 (1974); United States v. Joslin, supra at 257, 434 F.2d at 531 , and the motion will be granted if “the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927).	1	2
Butler v. United Statesgreen dc · 2003 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is governed by Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e); if, as here, a motion is filed before sentencing, withdrawal will be permitted “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Butler v. United States, 836 A.2d 570, 574 (D.C.2003).	1	1
Morrison v. United Statesgreen dc · 1990 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004While motions to withdraw a guilty plea which are made after sentencing are subject to the “manifest injustice” standard of 32(e) of the Superior Court Criminal Rules, Morrison v. United States, 579 A.2d 686, 689 (D.C.1990) (quoting Carmichael v. United States, 479 A.2d 325, 327 (D.C.1984)), a motion to withdraw a guilty plea made before sentencing is regarded more leniently and is given favorable consideration “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Springs v. United States, 614 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C.1992) (quoting Gooding v. United, States, 529 A.2d 301, 306 (D.C.1987	1	1
Bettis v. United Statesgreen dc · 1974 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982Jordan v. United States, D.C.App., 350 A.2d 735, 737 (1976); accord, Taylor v. United States, D.C.App., 366 A.2d 444, 447 (1976); Bettis v. United States, D.C.App., 325 A.2d 190, 195 (1974); United States v. Joslin, supra at 257, 434 F.2d at 531 , and the motion will be granted if "the granting of the privilege seems fair and just." Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). 1982Jordan v. United States, D.C.App., 350 A.2d 735, 737 (1976); accord, Taylor v. United States, D.C.App., 366 A.2d 444, 447 (1976); Bettis v. United States, D.C.App., 325 A.2d 190, 195 (1974); United States v. Joslin, supra at 257, 434 F.2d at 531 , and the motion will be granted if “the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927).	1	1
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commissiongreen · 1911 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981See Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 31 S.Ct. 279, 283 , 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911); Dobbs v. Neverson, D.C. 1981See Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 31 S.Ct. 279, 283 , 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911); Dobbs v. Neverson, D.C.	1	1
United States v. Frankgreen dcd · 1959 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1
United States v. Ahmadgreen pamd · 1971 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1
United States v. Jacksongreen ilnd · 1974 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1
United States v. Leichtfussgreen ilnd · 1971 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1
United States v. J. Frank Hancockgreen ca5 · 1971 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975 1 sentence 1975See also United States v. Murphy, 480 F.2d 256, 259 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 912 , 94 S.Ct. 253 , 38 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973) [“ . . . it is settled that this motion. [for disclosure of the government’s trial witnesses] was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. . . . ”]; United States v. Cole, 449 F.2d 194, 198 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 931 , 92 S.Ct. 987 , 30 L.Ed.2d 806 (1972); United States v. Hancock, 441 F.2d 1285, 1286 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 833 , 92 S.Ct. 81 , 30 L.Ed.2d 63 (1971) [“Apart from the Con-gressionally created exception in capital case	1	1
cluster 299357green ca8 · 1971 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975 1 sentence 1975See also United States v. Murphy, 480 F.2d 256, 259 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 912 , 94 S.Ct. 253 , 38 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973) [“ . . . it is settled that this motion. [for disclosure of the government’s trial witnesses] was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. . . . ”]; United States v. Cole, 449 F.2d 194, 198 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 931 , 92 S.Ct. 987 , 30 L.Ed.2d 806 (1972); United States v. Hancock, 441 F.2d 1285, 1286 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 833 , 92 S.Ct. 81 , 30 L.Ed.2d 63 (1971) [“Apart from the Con-gressionally created exception in capital case	1	1
United States v. Richard H. Murphygreen ca1 · 1973 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1
United States v. Blackburn Jacksongreen ca7 · 1975 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975 1 sentence 1975Ill.1974) (Memorandum Opinion per Marshall, J.), aff'd on this ground, 508 F.2d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Moceri, 359 F.Supp. 431, 434-45 (N.D.Ohio 1973); United States v. Ahmad, 53 F.R.D. 186, 191 (M.D.Pa.1971); United States v. Leichtfuss, 331 F.Supp. 723, 732 (N.D.Ill. 1971); United States v. frank, 23 F.R.D. 145, 146 (D.D.C.1959).	1	1
Higdon v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1
Hall v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1
United States v. Mocerigreen ohnd · 1973 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975 1 sentence 1975Ill.1974) (Memorandum Opinion per Marshall, J.), aff'd on this ground, 508 F.2d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Moceri, 359 F.Supp. 431, 434-45 (N.D.Ohio 1973); United States v. Ahmad, 53 F.R.D. 186, 191 (M.D.Pa.1971); United States v. Leichtfuss, 331 F.Supp. 723, 732 (N.D.Ill. 1971); United States v. frank, 23 F.R.D. 145, 146 (D.D.C.1959).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Kadrmas v. Sauvageau green nd · 1971 2 sentences 2025The Duhig rule, adopted by this Court in Kadrmas v. Sauvageau, 188 N.W.2d 753 (N.D. 1971), derived from a Texas Supreme Court case, Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940). 2025The Duhig rule, adopted by this Court in Kadrmas v. Sauvageau, 188 N.W.2d 753 (N.D. 1971), derived from a Texas Supreme Court case, Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940).	2	2025–2025
Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co. green · 1940 2 sentences 2025The Duhig rule, adopted by this Court in Kadrmas v. Sauvageau, 188 N.W.2d 753 (N.D. 1971), derived from a Texas Supreme Court case, Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940). 2025The Duhig rule, adopted by this Court in Kadrmas v. Sauvageau, 188 N.W.2d 753 (N.D. 1971), derived from a Texas Supreme Court case, Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940).	2	2025–2025
Edwards v. United States green dc · 2001 1 sentence 2007Menna and Blackledge do not dictate that in this circumstance the defendant must be able to bring a freestanding appeal of the competency determination as though he had never pled guilty. 8 .See Edwards v. United States, 766 A.2d 981 , 988 n. 10 (D.C.2001) (noting that a post- *763 sentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed under the stringent "manifest injustice” standard rather than under the more liberal "if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just” standard applicable to a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a plea); Binion v. United States, 658 A.2d 187,	1	2007–2007
Pierce v. United States green dc · 1997 1 sentence 2000A motion to withdraw a guilty plea made before sentence is regarded more leniently and should be given favorable consideration “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” Pierce, 705 A.2d at 1092 .	1	2000–2000
Dobbs v. Neverson green dc · 1978 1 sentence 1981See Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 31 S.Ct. 279, 283 , 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911); Dobbs v. Neverson, D.C.App., 393 A.2d 147 , 155 n.14 (1978).	1	1981–1981
Durante v. United States green dc · 1973 1 sentence 1976The Supreme Court observed: “The court in exercise of its discretion will permit one accused to substitute a plea of not guilty and have a trial if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” (Id. at 224, 47 S.Ct. at 583 : citations omitted.) Kercheval , as appellant points out, has been read as calling for a somewhat receptive attitude toward motions to withdraw guilty pleas if filed before sentencing. 4 Durante v. United States, D.C.App., 309 A.2d 321 (1973); Gearhart v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 270 , 272 F.2d 499 (1959); United States v. Young, 424 F.2d 1276 (3	1	1976–1976
John A. Gearhart v. United States green cadc · 1959 1 sentence 1976The Supreme Court observed: “The court in exercise of its discretion will permit one accused to substitute a plea of not guilty and have a trial if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” (Id. at 224, 47 S.Ct. at 583 : citations omitted.) Kercheval , as appellant points out, has been read as calling for a somewhat receptive attitude toward motions to withdraw guilty pleas if filed before sentencing. 4 Durante v. United States, D.C.App., 309 A.2d 321 (1973); Gearhart v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 270 , 272 F.2d 499 (1959); United States v. Young, 424 F.2d 1276 (3	1	1976–1976
United States v. Leonard Young green ca3 · 1970 1 sentence 1976The Supreme Court observed: “The court in exercise of its discretion will permit one accused to substitute a plea of not guilty and have a trial if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” (Id. at 224, 47 S.Ct. at 583 : citations omitted.) Kercheval , as appellant points out, has been read as calling for a somewhat receptive attitude toward motions to withdraw guilty pleas if filed before sentencing. 4 Durante v. United States, D.C.App., 309 A.2d 321 (1973); Gearhart v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 270 , 272 F.2d 499 (1959); United States v. Young, 424 F.2d 1276 (3	1	1976–1976
Electronic Components for Industry Co. v. Electronic Communications, Inc. green scotus · 1971 1 sentence 1975See also United States v. Murphy, 480 F.2d 256, 259 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 912 , 94 S.Ct. 253 , 38 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973) [“ . . . it is settled that this motion. [for disclosure of the government’s trial witnesses] was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. . . . ”]; United States v. Cole, 449 F.2d 194, 198 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 931 , 92 S.Ct. 987 , 30 L.Ed.2d 806 (1972); United States v. Hancock, 441 F.2d 1285, 1286 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 833 , 92 S.Ct. 81 , 30 L.Ed.2d 63 (1971) [“Apart from the Con-gressionally created exception in capital case	1	1975–1975
Lopez v. United States green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 1975See also United States v. Murphy, 480 F.2d 256, 259 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 912 , 94 S.Ct. 253 , 38 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973) [“ . . . it is settled that this motion. [for disclosure of the government’s trial witnesses] was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. . . . ”]; United States v. Cole, 449 F.2d 194, 198 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 931 , 92 S.Ct. 987 , 30 L.Ed.2d 806 (1972); United States v. Hancock, 441 F.2d 1285, 1286 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 833 , 92 S.Ct. 81 , 30 L.Ed.2d 63 (1971) [“Apart from the Con-gressionally created exception in capital case	1	1975–1975
Huffman v. Moore green scotus · 1972	1	1975–1975
State Ex Rel. Lyon v. State Warehouse Commission green · 1912 1 sentence 1975See also United States v. Murphy, 480 F.2d 256, 259 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 912 , 94 S.Ct. 253 , 38 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973) [“ . . . it is settled that this motion. [for disclosure of the government’s trial witnesses] was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. . . . ”]; United States v. Cole, 449 F.2d 194, 198 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 931 , 92 S.Ct. 987 , 30 L.Ed.2d 806 (1972); United States v. Hancock, 441 F.2d 1285, 1286 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 833 , 92 S.Ct. 81 , 30 L.Ed.2d 63 (1971) [“Apart from the Con-gressionally created exception in capital case	1	1975–1975
Bergen v. United States green ca8 · 1944	1	1951–1951

Statutes the citing opinions construe

DC § D.C. Code § 22-2101 (5) DC § D.C. Code § 23-110 (5) DC § D.C. Code § 22-2403 (3) DC § D.C. Code § 22-4504 (3)

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

TX 249 (1886–2026) MS 139 (1896–2026) CA 106 (1890–2026) PA 98 (1906–2025) LA 88 (1943–2026) NC 73 (1908–2026) NY 67 (1882–2017) AL 59 (1889–2018) IL 53 (1882–2008) OK 51 (1928–2016) OH 43 (1896–2024) AR 41 (1901–2006) MD 41 (1869–2023) KY 38 (1888–2024) SC 34 (1907–2025) IA 34 (1893–2019) IN 33 (1890–2023) VA 32 (1903–2024) TN 31 (1903–2022) WA 29 (1914–2025) MO 28 (1866–2024) MI 25 (1882–2018) DC 25 (1951–2026) GA 24 (1878–2025) CO 23 (1889–2021) WV 21 (1899–2023) KS 20 (1891–2016) RI 18 (1930–2015) FL 17 (1918–2022) WI 17 (1891–2018) ND 16 (1955–2024) NV 15 (1915–2021) NM 15 (1893–2026) NJ 14 (1889–2022) WY 12 (1918–2022) CT 12 (1946–2020) MT 11 (1930–2006) NE 11 (1896–1993) MA 10 (1888–2013) UT 9 (1908–2023) AZ 9 (1946–2008) VT 8 (1912–2026) ME 7 (1891–2010) VI 7 (2010–2016) ID 6 (1908–1983) DE 6 (1929–2022) OR 6 (1890–2010) HI 5 (1910–1978) SD 4 (1900–2009) MN 3 (1909–2004) PR 2 (1953–2005) NH 2 (1971–1998)

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