150 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1966–2026 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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. Eadygreen2 sentences2009See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. 2009See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 8 | 8 |
Hooks v. Easleygreen2 sentences2009See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. 2008See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 8 | 8 |
Foster v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. 2008See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 8 | 8 |
Osorio de Escobar v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. 2008See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 8 | 8 |
State v. Jolygreen2 sentences1996See State v. Joly, 219 Conn. 234 , 258 n.16, 593 A.2d 96 (1991). 1996See State v. Joly, 219 Conn. 234 , 258 n.16, 593 A.2d 96 (1991). | 4 | 11 |
State v. Mulerogreen2 sentences2011See State v. Mulero, 91 Conn. App. 509 , 514 n.3, 881 A.2d 1039 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 912 , 895 A.2d 792 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 862 , 127 S. Ct. 149 , 166 L. 2011See State v. Mulero, 91 Conn. App. 509 , 514 n.3, 881 A.2d 1039 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 912 , 895 A.2d 792 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 862 , 127 S. Ct. 149 , 166 L. | 4 | 4 |
Sengchanthong v. Commissioner of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Mulero, 91 Conn. App. 509 , 514 n.3, 881 A.2d 1039 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 912 , 895 A.2d 792 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 862 , 127 S. Ct. 149 , 166 L. 2008See State v. Mulero, 91 Conn. App. 509 , 514 n.3, 881 A.2d 1039 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 912 , 895 A.2d 792 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 862 , 127 S. Ct. 149 , 166 L. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Soldigreen2 sentences2011See State v. Mulero, 91 Conn. App. 509 , 514 n.3, 881 A.2d 1039 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 912 , 895 A.2d 792 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 862 , 127 S. Ct. 149 , 166 L. 2008See State v. Mulero, 91 Conn. App. 509 , 514 n.3, 881 A.2d 1039 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 912 , 895 A.2d 792 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 862 , 127 S. Ct. 149 , 166 L. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Merriamgreen2 sentences2004See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ("before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"); *852 State v. Merriam, 264 Conn. 617, 649 , 826 A.2d 1021 (2003) (where constitutional violation is subject to harmless error analysis, "state has burden of demonstrating that ... violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"). 2004Ed. 2d 705 (1967) (“before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”); State v. Merriam, 264 Conn. 617, 649 , 835 A.2d 895 (2003) (where constitutional violation is subject to harmless error analysis, “state has burden of demonstrating that . . . violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Fishergreen2 sentences2019See State v. Jarrett, 82 Conn. App. 489 , 498 n.5, 845 A.2d 476 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 911 , 852 A.2d 741 (2004). 11 Additionally, the defendant requests that this court use its supervisory authority to establish a more uniform procedure for conducting a canvass on the waiver of the right to a jury trial. ‘‘Supervisory authority is an extraordi- nary remedy that should be used sparingly . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Edwards, 314 Conn. 465 , 498, 102 A.3d 52 (2014). 2019See State v. Jarrett, 82 Conn. App. 489 , 498 n.5, 845 A.2d 476 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 911 , 852 A.2d 741 (2004). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Jarrett, 82 Conn. App. 489 , 498 n.5, 845 A.2d 476 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 911 , 852 A.2d 741 (2004). 11 Additionally, the defendant requests that this court use its supervisory authority to establish a more uniform procedure for conducting a canvass on the waiver of the right to a jury trial. ‘‘Supervisory authority is an extraordi- nary remedy that should be used sparingly . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Edwards, 314 Conn. 465 , 498, 102 A.3d 52 (2014). 2019See State v. Jarrett, 82 Conn. App. 489 , 498 n.5, 845 A.2d 476 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 911 , 852 A.2d 741 (2004). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Jarrettgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Jarrett, 82 Conn. App. 489 , 498 n.5, 845 A.2d 476 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 911 , 852 A.2d 741 (2004). 2019See State v. Jarrett, 82 Conn. App. 489 , 498 n.5, 845 A.2d 476 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 911 , 852 A.2d 741 (2004). | 3 | 3 |
Mincey v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2010See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); State v. Magnano, 204 Conn. 259, 265 , 528 *533 A.2d 760 (1987). 2010See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); State v. Magnano, 204 Conn. 259, 265 , 528 *533 A.2d 760 (1987). | 3 | 3 |
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.green2 sentences2008"This court has held, in accordance with the federal constitutional framework of analysis, that `in areas of social and economic policy that neither proceed along suspect lines nor infringe fundamental constitutional rights, the [e]qual [p]rotection [c]lause is satisfied [as] long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, see United States Railroad Retirement [Board] v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174, 179 [ 101 S.Ct. 453 , 66 L.Ed.2d 368 ] (1980), the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based rationally may have been considered to be true by the government 2008"This court has held, in accordance with the federal constitutional framework of analysis, that `in areas of social and economic policy that neither proceed along suspect lines nor infringe fundamental constitutional rights, the [e]qual [p]rotection [c]lause is satisfied [as] long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, see United States Railroad Retirement [Board] v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174, 179 [ 101 S.Ct. 453 , 66 L.Ed.2d 368 ] (1980), the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based rationally may have been considered to be true by the government | 3 | 3 |
United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritzgreen2 sentences2008“This court has held, in accordance with the federal constitutional framework of analysis, that ‘in areas of social and economic policy that neither proceed along suspect lines nor infringe fundamental constitutional rights, the [e]qual [protection [c]lause is satisfied [as] long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, see United States Railroad Retirement [Board] v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174, 179 [ 101 S. Ct. 453 , 66 L. 2008“This court has held, in accordance with the federal constitutional framework of analysis, that ‘in areas of social and economic policy that neither proceed along suspect lines nor infringe fundamental constitutional rights, the [e]qual [protection [c]lause is satisfied [as] long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, see United States Railroad Retirement [Board] v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174, 179 [ 101 S. Ct. 453 , 66 L. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Pindergreen2 sentences2006See State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385 , 418 n.31, 736 A.2d 857 (1999). 2006See State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385 , 418 n.31, 736 A.2d 857 (1999). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Vegagreen2 sentences2006See State v. Vega, 259 Conn. 374 , 384 n.15, 788 A.2d 1221 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 836 , 123 S. Ct. 152 , 154 L. 2006See State v. Vega, 259 Conn. 374 , 384 n.15, 788 A.2d 1221 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 836 , 123 S. Ct. 152 , 154 L. | 3 | 3 |
| Carter v. Cain, Wardengreen | 3 | 3 |
| Jaffe v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen | 3 | 3 |
| Morales v. Greiner, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facilitygreen | 3 | 3 |
State v. Geislergreen2 sentences2016Although the defendant argues in his brief that the state's conduct violated both the federal and state constitutions, he has provided no independent analysis under the state constitution, as required by State v. Geisler , 222 Conn. 672 , 684-86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), and so we limit our review to the federal constitutional claim. 2016Although the defendant argues in his brief that the state's conduct violated both the federal and state constitutions, he has provided no independent analysis under the state constitution, as required by State v. Geisler , 222 Conn. 672 , 684-86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), and so we limit our review to the federal constitutional claim. | 2 | 3 |
Benton v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2010The fifth amendment to the United States constitution provides in relevant part: "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...." This clause is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment; Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); and establishes the federal constitutional standard concerning the guarantee against double jeopardy. 2010The fifth amendment to the United States constitution provides in relevant part: "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...." This clause is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment; Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); and establishes the federal constitutional standard concerning the guarantee against double jeopardy. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2001See State v. Robertson, 254 Conn. 739 , 743 n.5, 760 A.2d 82 (2000) (“[i]n the absence of an independent state constitutional analysis, we limit our review to the defendant’s federal constitutional claim”). 2001See State v. Robertson, 254 Conn. 739 , 743 n.5, 760 A.2d 82 (2000) (“[i]n the absence of an independent state constitutional analysis, we limit our review to the defendant’s federal constitutional claim”). | 2 | 3 |
| Hong Pham v. Starkowskigreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Reidgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Maiagreen | 2 | 2 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2009"As the United States Supreme Court said in Chapman v. California [ 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)], before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Our Supreme Court] has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davis, 109 Conn.App. 187, 197 , 951 A.2d 31 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 160 (20 2009"As the United States Supreme Court said in Chapman v. California [ 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)], before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Our Supreme Court] has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davis, 109 Conn.App. 187, 197 , 951 A.2d 31 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 160 (20 | 1 | 10 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2025As Justice Ecker reminds us; see part I A 3 of Justice Ecker’s concurring opinion; when evaluating whether a particular additional or substitute procedural safeguard is necessary as a matter of state constitutional due process, we have ‘‘[b]orrow[ed] from the federal constitutional standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 334–35, 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. 2025As Justice Ecker reminds us; see part I A 3 of Justice Ecker’s concurring opinion; when evaluating whether a particular additional or substitute procedural safeguard is necessary as a matter of state constitutional due process, we have ‘‘[b]orrow[ed] from the federal constitutional standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 334–35, 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 3 |
| United States v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Sinvilgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Perezgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Mukhtaargreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mirandagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mozell v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Roger B.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ramirezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kimbrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bartongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Allengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2025We address the defendant’s federal constitutional claim prior to his state constitutional claim because ‘‘we can predict to a reasonable degree of certainty how the 6 The defendant concedes that he did not preserve this constitutional claim and seeks review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). 2025We address the defendant’s federal constitutional claim prior to his state constitutional claim because ‘‘we can predict to a reasonable degree of certainty how the 6 The defendant concedes that he did not preserve this constitutional claim and seeks review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). | 4 | 1993–2025 |
Seymour v. United States
green
2 sentences1995Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S. Ct. 1283 , 18 L. 1995Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S. Ct. 1283 , 18 L. | 4 | 1989–1995 |
Berger v. New York
green
2 sentences1995Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S. Ct. 1283 , 18 L. 1995Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S. Ct. 1283 , 18 L. | 4 | 1989–1995 |
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2021The United States Supreme Court has previously held that, ‘‘[w]ithin the limits set by the legislature’s constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforce- ment is not in itself a federal constitutional violation so long as the selection was [not] deliberately based [on] an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S. Ct. 663 , 54 L. 2021The United States Supreme Court has previously held that, ‘‘[w]ithin the limits set by the legislature’s constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforce- ment is not in itself a federal constitutional violation so long as the selection was [not] deliberately based [on] an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S. Ct. 663 , 54 L. | 3 | 1996–2021 |
Fetterman v. University of Connecticut
green
2 sentences2019Relying on, inter alia, *692 Sullins v. Rodriguez , 281 Conn. 128 , 913 A.2d 415 (2007), and Fetterman v. University of Connecticut , 192 Conn. 539 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), the plaintiff further contends that, under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, "state law defenses [such as lack of jurisdiction under article third, § 7, of the state constitution] cannot be asserted against federal constitutional claims ...." In response, the defendants rely on the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shannon v. Jacobowitz , 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005 2019Relying on, inter alia, *692 Sullins v. Rodriguez , 281 Conn. 128 , 913 A.2d 415 (2007), and Fetterman v. University of Connecticut , 192 Conn. 539 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), the plaintiff further contends that, under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, "state law defenses [such as lack of jurisdiction under article third, § 7, of the state constitution] cannot be asserted against federal constitutional claims ...." In response, the defendants rely on the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shannon v. Jacobowitz , 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005 | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Sullins v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2019Relying on, inter alia, *692 Sullins v. Rodriguez , 281 Conn. 128 , 913 A.2d 415 (2007), and Fetterman v. University of Connecticut , 192 Conn. 539 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), the plaintiff further contends that, under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, "state law defenses [such as lack of jurisdiction under article third, § 7, of the state constitution] cannot be asserted against federal constitutional claims ...." In response, the defendants rely on the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shannon v. Jacobowitz , 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005 2019Relying on, inter alia, *692 Sullins v. Rodriguez , 281 Conn. 128 , 913 A.2d 415 (2007), and Fetterman v. University of Connecticut , 192 Conn. 539 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), the plaintiff further contends that, under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, "state law defenses [such as lack of jurisdiction under article third, § 7, of the state constitution] cannot be asserted against federal constitutional claims ...." In response, the defendants rely on the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shannon v. Jacobowitz , 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005 | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Powell v. Power
green
2 sentences2019Relying on, inter alia, *692 Sullins v. Rodriguez , 281 Conn. 128 , 913 A.2d 415 (2007), and Fetterman v. University of Connecticut , 192 Conn. 539 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), the plaintiff further contends that, under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, "state law defenses [such as lack of jurisdiction under article third, § 7, of the state constitution] cannot be asserted against federal constitutional claims ...." In response, the defendants rely on the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shannon v. Jacobowitz , 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005 2019Relying on, inter alia, Sullins v. Rodriguez, 281 Conn. 128 , 913 A.2d 415 (2007), and Fetterman v. Uni- versity of Connecticut, 192 Conn. 539 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), the plaintiff further contends that, under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, ‘‘state law defenses [such as lack of jurisdiction under article third, § 7, of the state constitution] cannot be asserted against federal constitutional claims . . . .’’ In response, the defendants rely on the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shannon v. Jacobowitz, 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005) | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Shannon v. Jacobowitz
green
2 sentences2019Relying on, inter alia, *692 Sullins v. Rodriguez , 281 Conn. 128 , 913 A.2d 415 (2007), and Fetterman v. University of Connecticut , 192 Conn. 539 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), the plaintiff further contends that, under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, "state law defenses [such as lack of jurisdiction under article third, § 7, of the state constitution] cannot be asserted against federal constitutional claims ...." In response, the defendants rely on the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shannon v. Jacobowitz , 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005 2019Relying on, inter alia, Sullins v. Rodriguez, 281 Conn. 128 , 913 A.2d 415 (2007), and Fetterman v. Uni- versity of Connecticut, 192 Conn. 539 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), the plaintiff further contends that, under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, ‘‘state law defenses [such as lack of jurisdiction under article third, § 7, of the state constitution] cannot be asserted against federal constitutional claims . . . .’’ In response, the defendants rely on the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shannon v. Jacobowitz, 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005) | 3 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Morales green | 3 | 1998–2003 |
| United States v. Jerry Thornton, United States of America v. Frederick Jones, AKA Freddy Earl Jones green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Jenkins green | 2 | 2016–2017 |
| State v. Kasprzyk green | 2 | 2010–2013 |
| State v. Hoeplinger green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| State v. DePastino green | 2 | 1996–2005 |
| State v. Valentine green | 2 | 2002–2003 |
| Fay v. Noia red | 2 | 1966–2001 |
| Colorado v. Connelly green | 2 | 1998–2000 |
| Kinsella v. Jaekle green | 2 | 1995–1998 |
| State v. Lamme green | 2 | 1995–1998 |
| Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. green | 2 | 1995–1998 |
| State v. Zarick green | 2 | 1994–1998 |
| Pemberton v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division green | 2 | 1994–1998 |
| Thomason v. Chemical Bank green | 2 | 1995–1997 |
| Lego v. Twomey green | 2 | 1993–1994 |
| Scinto v. Stamm green | 2 | 1993–1993 |
| Davis v. United States green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Morales green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Smith v. Arizona green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Dickson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Verdin-Garcia v. United States green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Connecticut v. Dickson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Diaz green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. McKiernan green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Neil v. Biggers green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Illinois v. Caballes green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Caracoglia green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Gooding v. Wilson green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Florida v. Jardines green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.