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.
153 Washington opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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. Gunwallgreen2 sentences2020And as noted by the State, Abbott does not argue for a separate state constitutional standard under State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986). 2020And as noted by the State, Abbott does not argue for a separate state constitutional standard under State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986). | 7 | 43 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2008See State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 594-95 , 940 P.2d 546 (1997) (“This Court will address a state constitutional claim only if the claimant sufficiently briefs the Gunwall factors.” (citing State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986))). 2008See State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 594-95 , 940 P.2d 546 (1997) (“This Court will address a state constitutional claim only if the claimant sufficiently briefs the Gunwall factors.” (citing State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986))). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2008See State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 594-95 , 940 P.2d 546 (1997) (“This Court will address a state constitutional claim only if the claimant sufficiently briefs the Gunwall factors.” (citing State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986))). 2008See State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 594-95 , 940 P.2d 546 (1997) (“This Court will address a state constitutional claim only if the claimant sufficiently briefs the Gunwall factors.” (citing State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986))). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2004See State v. White, 135 Wn.2d 761, 769 , 958 P.2d 982 (1998). 2004See State v. White, 135 Wn.2d 761, 769 , 958 P.2d 982 (1998). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2004See State v. White, 135 Wn.2d 761, 769 , 958 P.2d 982 (1998). 2004See State v. White, 135 Wn.2d 761, 769 , 958 P.2d 982 (1998). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2007Accordingly, a Gunwall 2 analysis is unnecessary to establish that this court should undertake an independent state constitutional analysis. 3 State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251, 259 , 76 P.3d 217 (2003); McKinney, 148 Wn.2d at 26 . ¶13 The only relevant question is whether article I, section 7 affords enhanced protection in the particular context. 2007Accordingly, a Gunwall 3 analysis is unnecessary to establish that this court should undertake an independent state constitutional analysis. 4 State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251, 259 , 76 P.3d 217 (2003); McKinney, 148 Wn.2d at 26 . | 3 | 12 |
| State v. Furmangreen | 3 | 3 |
State v. McKinneygreen2 sentences2019We therefore take this opportunity to reaffirm that no Gunwall analysis is required to justify an independent state constitutional analysis of article I, section 7 in new contexts. 3 Courts and parties may assume an independent state analysis is justified and move directly to the merits of the article I, section 7 claim presented. ¶ 16 "It is well established that article I, section 7 qualitatively differs from the Fourth Amendment and in some areas provides greater protections than does the federal constitution." State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wash.2d 454 , 462, 158 P.3d 595 (2007) (citing State v. 2018“Accordingly, a Gunwall analysis is unnecessary to establish that this court should undertake an independent state constitutional analysis.” Athan, 160 Wn.2d at 365 (footnote omitted); see also State v. McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20, 26 , 60 P.3d 46 (2002) (same); State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 463 , 158 P.3d 595 (2007) (same). | 2 | 14 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2007Accordingly, a Gunwall 2 analysis is unnecessary to establish that this court should undertake an independent state constitutional analysis. 3 State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251, 259 , 76 P.3d 217 (2003); McKinney, 148 Wn.2d at 26 . ¶13 The only relevant question is whether article I, section 7 affords enhanced protection in the particular context. 2007Accordingly, a Gunwall 3 analysis is unnecessary to establish that this court should undertake an independent state constitutional analysis. 4 State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251, 259 , 76 P.3d 217 (2003); McKinney, 148 Wn.2d at 26 . | 2 | 12 |
Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevuegreen2 sentences2012A. Freedom of Speech and Privacy ¶44 Article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees that “[e]very person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.” Although article I, section 5 generally “provides broader free speech protection than the first amendment to the United States Constitution,” JJR Inc. v. City of Seattle, 126 Wn.2d 1 , 8 n.6, 891 P.2d 720 (1995), “the inquiry must focus on the specific context in which the state constitutional challenge is raised,” and “it does not follow that greater protection is prov 2009See Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn.2d 103 , 937 P.2d 154 , 943 P.2d 1358 (1997). ¶38 Returning to the state constitutional analysis, I necessarily repair to the text itself. | 2 | 7 |
Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevuegreen2 sentences2012A. Freedom of Speech and Privacy ¶44 Article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees that “[e]very person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.” Although article I, section 5 generally “provides broader free speech protection than the first amendment to the United States Constitution,” JJR Inc. v. City of Seattle, 126 Wn.2d 1 , 8 n.6, 891 P.2d 720 (1995), “the inquiry must focus on the specific context in which the state constitutional challenge is raised,” and “it does not follow that greater protection is prov 2009See Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn.2d 103 , 937 P.2d 154 , 943 P.2d 1358 (1997). ¶38 Returning to the state constitutional analysis, I necessarily repair to the text itself. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2017Because there is no significant difference between the language used in the parallel provisions of the state and federal due process clauses, these factors do not support an independent state constitutional analysis.12 State v. Foster, 135 Wn.2d 441, 459 , 957 P.2d 712 (1998). 12 SK-P’s argument that despite the identical language, our state constitution should be interpreted independently unless historical evidence shows the framers intended otherwise, is based on a dissent from State v. Ortiz, 119 Wn.2d 294, 315-19 , 831 P.2d 1060 (1992) (Johnson, J., dissenting), which is unpersuasive. 11 N 2011Moreover, we note that in Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612-13 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 , 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to require defendants to testify prior to hearing other evidence. [6] Although Martin does not address the fifth Gunwall factor, we have held that it supports an independent state constitutional analysis in every case and have consistently stated that our "consideration of this factor is always the same; that is that the United States Constitution is a grant of limited power to the federal government, while the state constitut | 2 | 5 |
Barnett v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2004See Barnett v. Hicks, 119 Wn.2d 151, 159 , 829 P.2d 1087 (1992) (noting that confidential proceedings in arbitrations are an exception to the state constitutional requirement that judicial proceedings be public). 2004See Barnett v. Hicks, 119 Wn.2d 151, 159 , 829 P.2d 1087 (1992) (noting that confidential proceedings in arbitrations are an exception to the state constitutional requirement that judicial proceedings be public). | 2 | 4 |
State v. O'Neillgreen2 sentences2020State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582 , 62 P.3d 489 (2003); see also Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 523, 538 , 936 P.2d 1123 (1997) (failure to conduct a Gunwall 8 analysis or show why the state constitutional provision should be interpreted differently than the federal results in court interpreting the state constitutional clause coextensively with its parallel federal counterpart); Justice Charles W. 2004See State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582 , 62 P.3d 489 (2003) (applying federal constitutional “plain view” analysis where the issue was whether an unlawful search of an automobile had occurred and no argument was made that the state constitutional analysis differs from the federal analysis). | 2 | 3 |
State v. O'NEILLgreen2 sentences2020State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582 , 62 P.3d 489 (2003); see also Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 523, 538 , 936 P.2d 1123 (1997) (failure to conduct a Gunwall 8 analysis or show why the state constitutional provision should be interpreted differently than the federal results in court interpreting the state constitutional clause coextensively with its parallel federal counterpart); Justice Charles W. 2004See State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582 , 62 P.3d 489 (2003) (applying federal constitutional “plain view” analysis where the issue was whether an unlawful search of an automobile had occurred and no argument was made that the state constitutional analysis differs from the federal analysis). | 2 | 3 |
| Srcc v. Public Disclosure Com'ngreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Williams-Walkergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Wenceslao Fernández v. Registrar of Property of San Juangreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Ruttengreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Bartholomewgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Andersen v. King Countygreen | 2 | 2 |
| City of Spokane v. Douglassgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, this factor “will always point toward pursuing an independent state constitutional analysis.” Young, 123 Wn.2d at 180 (citing State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 286 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991) (Utter, J., concurring)). 2020The fifth Gunwall factor “will always point toward pursuing an independent state constitutional analysis because the federal constitution is a grant of power from the states, while the state constitution represents a limitation of the State’s power.” State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 180 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994). | 1 | 11 |
State v. McKinneygreen2 sentences2019We therefore take this opportunity to reaffirm that no Gunwall analysis is required to justify an independent state constitutional analysis of article I, section 7 in new contexts. 3 Courts and parties may assume an independent state analysis is justified and move directly to the merits of the article I, section 7 claim presented. ¶ 16 "It is well established that article I, section 7 qualitatively differs from the Fourth Amendment and in some areas provides greater protections than does the federal constitution." State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wash.2d 454 , 462, 158 P.3d 595 (2007) (citing State v. 2018“Accordingly, a Gunwall analysis is unnecessary to establish that this court should undertake an independent state constitutional analysis.” Athan, 160 Wn.2d at 365 (footnote omitted); see also State v. McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20, 26 , 60 P.3d 46 (2002) (same); State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 463 , 158 P.3d 595 (2007) (same). | 1 | 10 |
Malyon v. Pierce Countygreen2 sentences2017However, later opinions moved away from the treatment of Gunwall as a high bar over which parties advocating state constitutional issues must overcome and toward using Gunwall as an interpretive tool to assure more thoughtful development of state constitutional jurisprudence. 17 No. 48299-1-II that the state constitution should be interpreted independently from the federal constitution in this context, the next inquiry is “‘what the state’s guarantee means and how it applies to the case at hand.’” Malyon, 131 Wn.2d at 798 n.30 (quoting The State and Federal Religion Clauses: Differences of Deg 2009In another case arising under Washington Constitution article I, section 11, we held, “Appropriate constitutional analysis begins with the text and, for most purposes, should end there as well.” Malyon v. Pierce County, 131 Wn.2d 779, 799 , 935 P.2d 1272 (1997). | 1 | 5 |
Nelson v. McClatchy Newpapers, Inc.green2 sentences2020State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582 , 62 P.3d 489 (2003); see also Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 523, 538 , 936 P.2d 1123 (1997) (failure to conduct a Gunwall 8 analysis or show why the state constitutional provision should be interpreted differently than the federal results in court interpreting the state constitutional clause coextensively with its parallel federal counterpart); Justice Charles W. 2006Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 523, 538 , 936 P.2d 1123 (1997). | 1 | 3 |
Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapersgreen2 sentences2020State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582 , 62 P.3d 489 (2003); see also Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 523, 538 , 936 P.2d 1123 (1997) (failure to conduct a Gunwall 8 analysis or show why the state constitutional provision should be interpreted differently than the federal results in court interpreting the state constitutional clause coextensively with its parallel federal counterpart); Justice Charles W. 2006Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 523, 538 , 936 P.2d 1123 (1997). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2017Because there is no significant difference between the language used in the parallel provisions of the state and federal due process clauses, these factors do not support an independent state constitutional analysis.12 State v. Foster, 135 Wn.2d 441, 459 , 957 P.2d 712 (1998). 12 SK-P’s argument that despite the identical language, our state constitution should be interpreted independently unless historical evidence shows the framers intended otherwise, is based on a dissent from State v. Ortiz, 119 Wn.2d 294, 315-19 , 831 P.2d 1060 (1992) (Johnson, J., dissenting), which is unpersuasive. 11 N 2011Moreover, we note that in Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612-13 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 , 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to require defendants to testify prior to hearing other evidence. [6] Although Martin does not address the fifth Gunwall factor, we have held that it supports an independent state constitutional analysis in every case and have consistently stated that our "consideration of this factor is always the same; that is that the United States Constitution is a grant of limited power to the federal government, while the state constitut | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Hendricksongreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Hendricksongreen | 1 | 3 |
| City of Seattle v. Huffgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Chenowethgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Simpsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gocken
green
2 sentences2017For example, the lead opinion in State v. Gocken, 127 Wn.2d 95, 102-05 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995), assumed that federal jurisprudence is the starting point and used Gunwall as a tool to determine whether the state constitution provides greater protection compelling “access” to a state constitutional analysis. 2017For example, the lead opinion in State v. Gocken, 127 Wn.2d 95, 102-05 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995), assumed that federal jurisprudence is the starting point and used Gunwall as a tool to determine whether the state constitution provides greater protection compelling “access” to a state constitutional analysis. | 6 | 2003–2017 |
State v. Reichenbach
green
2 sentences2009Id. ¶15 A strict rule that courts will not consider state constitutional claims without a complete Gunwall analysis could return briefing into an antiquated writ system where parties may lose their constitutional rights by failing to incant correctly. 2007App. 297, 311 , 62 P.3d 533 (2003) (stating that “just because a state constitutional provision has been subject to independent interpretation and found to be more protective in a particular context, it does not follow that greater protection is provided in all contexts”), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1087 (2004); State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126 , 131 n.1, 101 P.3d 80 (2004) (cautioning that “if there has been no prior determination of an appropriate independent state constitutional analysis in a particular context, and no argument is made that a different analysis applies under the state consti | 5 | 2007–2009 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2021Accordingly, this factor “will always point toward pursuing an independent state constitutional analysis.” Young, 123 Wn.2d at 180 (citing State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 286 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991) (Utter, J., concurring)). 2021Accordingly, this factor “will always point toward pursuing an independent state constitutional analysis.” Young, 123 Wn.2d at 180 (citing State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 286 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991) (Utter, J., concurring)). | 4 | 1995–2021 |
In Re the Welfare of Luscier
green
2 sentences2018The continued viability of the state constitutional analysis of In re Welfare of Myricks, 85 Wash.2d 252 , 255, 533 P.2d 841 (1975) and In re Welfare of Luscier, 84 Wash.2d 135 , 138, 524 P.2d 906 (1974) is not presented in this case, nor is it questioned by this opinion. 2018The continued viability of the state constitutional analysis of In re Welfare of Myricks, 85 Wash.2d 252 , 255, 533 P.2d 841 (1975) and In re Welfare of Luscier, 84 Wash.2d 135 , 138, 524 P.2d 906 (1974) is not presented in this case, nor is it questioned by this opinion. | 4 | 2007–2018 |
State v. Pillatos
green
2 sentences2017State v. Pillatos, 159 Wn.2d 459 , 475 n.7, 150 P.3d 1130 (2007). 2017State v. Pillatos, 159 Wn.2d 459 , 475 n.7, 150 P.3d 1130 (2007). 13 Emphasis omitted. 14 Italics omitted. 20 No. 73008-8-1 (Consol. with No. 73090-8-1)/21 A legislative act that applies "in such a way as to inflict punishment" on an individual or group "without judicial trial" violates the prohibition against bills of attainder. | 4 | 2012–2017 |
State v. Pillatos
green
2 sentences2017State v. Pillatos, 159 Wn.2d 459 , 475 n.7, 150 P.3d 1130 (2007). 2017State v. Pillatos, 159 Wn.2d 459 , 475 n.7, 150 P.3d 1130 (2007). 13 Emphasis omitted. 14 Italics omitted. 20 No. 73008-8-1 (Consol. with No. 73090-8-1)/21 A legislative act that applies "in such a way as to inflict punishment" on an individual or group "without judicial trial" violates the prohibition against bills of attainder. | 4 | 2012–2017 |
State v. Ladson
green
2 sentences2010Accordingly, I continue on to determine whether such an error is subject to a harmless error analysis under state law. ¶ 47 "Once this court has determined that a particular provision of the state constitution has an independent meaning using the factors outlined in [ State v.] Gunwall, [ 106 Wash.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986),] it need not reconsider whether to apply a state constitutional analysis in a new context." State v. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d 20, 26 , 60 P.3d 46 (2002) (citing State v. Ladson, 138 Wash.2d 343, 348 , 979 P.2d 833 (1999)). 2010Accordingly, I continue on to determine whether such an error is subject to a harmless error analysis under state law. ¶52 “Once this court has determined that a particular provision of the state constitution has an independent meaning using the factors outlined in [State v.] Gunwall, [ 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986),] it need not reconsider whether to apply a state constitutional analysis in a new context.” State v. McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20, 26 , 60 P.3d 46 (2002) (citing State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 348 , 979 P.2d 833 (1999)). | 4 | 2002–2010 |
State v. Ladson
green
2 sentences2010Accordingly, I continue on to determine whether such an error is subject to a harmless error analysis under state law. ¶ 47 "Once this court has determined that a particular provision of the state constitution has an independent meaning using the factors outlined in [ State v.] Gunwall, [ 106 Wash.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986),] it need not reconsider whether to apply a state constitutional analysis in a new context." State v. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d 20, 26 , 60 P.3d 46 (2002) (citing State v. Ladson, 138 Wash.2d 343, 348 , 979 P.2d 833 (1999)). 2010Accordingly, I continue on to determine whether such an error is subject to a harmless error analysis under state law. ¶52 “Once this court has determined that a particular provision of the state constitution has an independent meaning using the factors outlined in [State v.] Gunwall, [ 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986),] it need not reconsider whether to apply a state constitutional analysis in a new context.” State v. McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20, 26 , 60 P.3d 46 (2002) (citing State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 348 , 979 P.2d 833 (1999)). | 4 | 2002–2010 |
State v. Myrick
green
2 sentences2001The Thorson court, citing State v. Myrick, 102 Wn.2d 506 , 688 P.2d 151 (1984), aptly noted that resolution of the state constitutional claim required the reviewing court “to look to the nature of the property, the expectation of privacy it reasonably supports, and the nature of the intrusion.” Thorson, 98 Wn. 2001The Thorson court, citing State v. Myrick, 102 Wn.2d 506 , 688 P.2d 151 (1984), aptly noted that resolution of the state constitutional claim required the reviewing court “to look to the nature of the property, the expectation of privacy it reasonably supports, and the nature of the intrusion.” Thorson, 98 Wn. | 4 | 1998–2001 |
State v. Roberts
green
2 sentences2017As Ramos correctly notes, This Court has "repeated[ly] recogni[zed] that the Washington State Constitution's cruel punishment clause often provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment." State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 506 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000); Const. art. 2017As Ramos correctly notes, This Court has “repeated [ly] recogni[zed] that the Washington State Constitution’s cruel punishment clause often pro vides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment.” State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 506 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000); Const. art. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Roberts green | 3 | 2017–2017 |
| Malyon v. Pierce County green | 3 | 2002–2009 |
| State v. Reichenbach green | 3 | 2007–2008 |
| City of Seattle v. Mesiani green | 3 | 1997–1998 |
| State v. Wethered green | 3 | 1994–1997 |
| State v. Chenoweth green | 2 | 2018–2019 |
| State v. Davis red | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Ramos green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Ortiz green | 2 | 1994–2017 |
| Mathews v. Eldridge green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| Blakely v. Washington green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Tongate green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Smith green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Smith green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Miles green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Surge green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Surge green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Miles green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| In Re Juveniles A, B, C, D, E green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty. green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| City of Seattle v. McCready green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Andersen v. King County green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Baehr v. Lewin red | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| Baehr v. Lewin red | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| City of Bellevue v. Lorang green | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| City of Bellevue v. Lorang green | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. E.J.Y. green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| 1519-1525 Lakeview Boulevard Condominium Ass'n v. Apartment Sales Corp. green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| 1519-1525 Lakeview Blvd. Condo. v. Asc green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Thorson green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
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.