149 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 19 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Smith v. State, 986 So. 2d 290, 300 (¶31) (Miss. 2008) (finding harmless error despite a Confrontation Clause violation); Stevenson v. State, 357 So. 3d 1141 , 1149 (¶26) (Miss. 2024See Smith v. State, 986 So. 2d 290, 300 (¶31) (Miss. 2008) (finding harmless error despite a Confrontation Clause violation); Stevenson v. State, 357 So. 3d 1141 , 1149 (¶26) (Miss. | 16 | 17 |
Conners v. Stategreen2 sentences2023The supreme court applied the doctrine, and held that “although a Confrontation-Clause violation occurred at Conners’s trial, because the error was harmless, no manifest miscarriage of justice resulted.” Id. 13 when minors have testified, they have not addressed the issue of whether an adult witness’s testimony via two-way live video violates the Confrontation Clause; other jurisdictions have. 2023The supreme court applied the doctrine, and held that “although a Confrontation-Clause violation occurred at Conners’s trial, because the error was harmless, no manifest miscarriage of justice resulted.” Id. 13 when minors have testified, they have not addressed the issue of whether an adult witness’s testimony via two-way live video violates the Confrontation Clause; other jurisdictions have. | 12 | 18 |
Corbin v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Violations of the confrontation clause “are subject to harmless-error analysis.” Conners, 92 So. 3d at 684 (citing Corbin v. State, 74 So. 3d 333, 338 (Miss. 2011)). 2020Our state’s Supreme Court squarely addressed whether a Confrontation violation was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” in Corbin v. State, 74 So. 3d 333, 338 (¶16) (Miss. 2011). | 10 | 11 |
Lanier v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See e.g., United States v. Stone, 432 F.3d 651, 654 (6th Cir.2005) ("Because Crawford was concerned only with testimonial evidence introduced at trial, Crawford does not change our long-settled rule that the confrontation clause does not apply in sentencing proceedings"); United States v. Luciano, 414 F.3d 174, 178-80 (1st Cir.2005) ("Nothing in Crawford requires us to alter our previous conclusion that there is no Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right at sentencing."); United States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 242-43 (2d Cir.2005) ("[ Crawford ] provides no basis to question prior Supreme 2010See e.g., United States v. Stone, 432 F.3d 651, 654 (6th Cir.2005) ("Because Crawford was concerned only with testi monial evidence introduced at trial, Crawford does not change our long-settled rule that the confrontation clause does not apply in sentencing proceedings”); United States v. Luciano, 414 F.3d 174, 178-80 (1st Cir.2005) ("Nothing in Crawford requires us to alter our previous conclusion that there is no Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right at sentencing.”); United States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 242-43 (2d Cir.2005) ("[Crawford] provides no basis to question prior Supreme | 9 | 13 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen2 sentences2016It is secured by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, made enforceable against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment." Black v. State, 506 So.2d 264, 266-67 (Miss.1987) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)). 2016It is secured by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, made enforceable against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment." Black v. State, 506 So.2d 264, 266-67 (Miss.1987) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)). | 8 | 15 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Overruled. [3] Although this is a capital murder case, the State did not seek the death penalty. [4] The applicable progeny of Seales includes Harrington v. State, 793 So.2d 626 (Miss. 2001) (finding after examination of an alleged confrontation clause error that the statements were inadmissible since they did not satisfy the Roberts reliability test as set out in Seales ); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 1159 (Miss. 2000) (same); Williams v. State, 667 So.2d 15, 21 (Miss. 1996) (if the statement bears particularized guarantees of trustworthiness so that "the test of cross-examination would be of ma 2006You are further instructed to disregard any other statement attributed to Lewis 4 The applicable progeny of Seales includes Harrington v. State, 793 So. 2d 626 (Miss. 2001) (finding after examination of an alleged confrontation clause error that the statements were inadmissible since they did not satisfy the Roberts reliability test as set out in Seales); Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 1159 (Miss. 2000) (same); Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 15, 21 (Miss. 1996) (if the statement bears particularized guarantees of trustworthiness so that “the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility,” | 5 | 6 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2020Wells was later charged and pled guilty to the assault; thus, the confrontation clause would not have been applicable to that particular RVR at the subsequent Miller hearing. 21 to cross-examine. “ Id. at 59 . ¶42. 2016Furthermore, the Court noted that, “[t]he text of the Sixth Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions from the confrontation requirement to be developed by the courts.” Id. (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 54 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ). ¶ 29. | 4 | 18 |
Briggs v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“A general hearsay objection is insufficient to preserve an alleged Confrontation Clause violation for appellate review.” Id. (citing Briggs v. State, 16 So. 3d 696, 698-99 (¶11) (Miss. 2020“A general hearsay objection is insufficient to preserve an alleged Confrontation Clause violation for appellate review.” Id. (citing Briggs v. State, 16 So. 3d 696, 698-99 (¶11) (Miss. | 4 | 5 |
Hayden v. Stategreen2 sentences2011“This Court reviews de novo a Confrontation Clause objection.” Smith v. State, 986 So.2d 290, 296 (Miss.2008) (citing Hayden v. State, 972 So.2d 525, 535-36 (Miss.2007)). ¶ 37. 2010“This Court reviews de novo a Confrontation Clause objection.” Smith v. State, 986 So. 2d 290, 296 (Miss. 2008) (citing Hayden v. State, 972 So. 2d 525, 535-36 (Miss. 2007)). ¶37. | 4 | 4 |
Raiford v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“The right to cross-examination is secured by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, made enforceable against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. (quoting Raiford v. State, 907 So. 2d 998, 1001 (¶8) (Miss. 2025“Whether a violation of the confrontation clause in a particular case may be classified as harmless error depends upon a number of factors.” Raiford v. State, 907 So. 2d 998, 1004 (¶15) (Miss. | 3 | 4 |
Anthony v. Stategreen2 sentences2017However, this Court also held “general hearsay objection[s] [are] insufficient to preserve an alleged Confrontation Clause violation for appellate review.” Anthony v. State, 23 So.3d 611, 620 (¶ 41) (Miss. 2017However, this Court also held “general hearsay objection[s] [are] insufficient to preserve an alleged Confrontation Clause violation for appellate review.” Anthony v. State, 23 So.3d 611, 620 (¶ 41) (Miss. | 3 | 4 |
Pitchford v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Ed. 749 (1927) (a biased judge). 20 Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State, 119 So. 3d 317, 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State, 48 So. 3d 454, 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State, 45 So. 3d 216, 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State, 998 So. 2d 971, 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Mi 2018Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State , 119 So.3d 317 , 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State , 99 So.3d 159 , 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State , 48 So.3d 454 , 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State , 45 So.3d 216 , 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State , 998 So.2d 971 , 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 | 3 | 4 |
Marterius C. Sanders v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2025Ct. App. 2023), we explained our standard of review in cases dealing with constitutional issues: “Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo.” Buchanan v. State, 316 So. 3d 619 , 624 (¶18) (Miss. 2021). “[I]f a confrontation clause violation is found, the violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis.” Sanders v. State, 228 So. 3d 888, 890 (¶8) (Miss. 2024“Therefore, because there was additional evidence outside the tainted evidence that stemmed from the Confrontation Clause violation, . . . ‘the circuit court’s error . . . was a harmless one, and as such, no manifest miscarriage of justice occurred. . . .’” Stevenson, 357 So. 3d at 1156 (¶47) (quoting Sanders, 228 So. 3d at 893 (¶19)). 9 II. | 3 | 3 |
Black v. Stategreen2 sentences2016It is secured by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, made enforceable against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment." Black v. State, 506 So.2d 264, 266-67 (Miss.1987) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)). 2016“The right is secured independently by the confrontation clause of this state’s constitution....” Black, 506 So.2d at 267 (citing Miss. | 3 | 3 |
Walton v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Ed. 749 (1927) (a biased judge). 20 Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State, 119 So. 3d 317, 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State, 48 So. 3d 454, 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State, 45 So. 3d 216, 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State, 998 So. 2d 971, 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Mi 2018Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State , 119 So.3d 317 , 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State , 99 So.3d 159 , 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State , 48 So.3d 454 , 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State , 45 So.3d 216 , 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State , 998 So.2d 971 , 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 | 3 | 3 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Ed. 749 (1927) (a biased judge). 20 Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State, 119 So. 3d 317, 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State, 48 So. 3d 454, 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State, 45 So. 3d 216, 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State, 998 So. 2d 971, 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Mi 2018Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State , 119 So.3d 317 , 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State , 99 So.3d 159 , 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State , 48 So.3d 454 , 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State , 45 So.3d 216 , 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State , 998 So.2d 971 , 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 | 3 | 3 |
Avery v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Ed. 749 (1927) (a biased judge). 20 Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State, 119 So. 3d 317, 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State, 48 So. 3d 454, 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State, 45 So. 3d 216, 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State, 998 So. 2d 971, 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Mi 2018Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State , 119 So.3d 317 , 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State , 99 So.3d 159 , 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State , 48 So.3d 454 , 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State , 45 So.3d 216 , 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State , 998 So.2d 971 , 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 | 3 | 3 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Ed. 749 (1927) (a biased judge). 20 Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State, 119 So. 3d 317, 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State, 48 So. 3d 454, 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State, 45 So. 3d 216, 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State, 998 So. 2d 971, 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Mi 2018Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State , 119 So.3d 317 , 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State , 99 So.3d 159 , 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State , 48 So.3d 454 , 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State , 45 So.3d 216 , 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State , 998 So.2d 971 , 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 | 3 | 3 |
| United States v. Olanogreen | 3 | 3 |
| United States v. Lucianogreen | 3 | 3 |
| Wilson v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| United States v. David Martinezgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Mountain Top Beverage Group, Inc. v. Wildlife Brewing N.B., Inc. James Sorensongreen | 3 | 3 |
| Hall v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Overruled. [3] Although this is a capital murder case, the State did not seek the death penalty. [4] The applicable progeny of Seales includes Harrington v. State, 793 So.2d 626 (Miss. 2001) (finding after examination of an alleged confrontation clause error that the statements were inadmissible since they did not satisfy the Roberts reliability test as set out in Seales ); Smith v. State, 754 So.2d 1159 (Miss. 2000) (same); Williams v. State, 667 So.2d 15, 21 (Miss. 1996) (if the statement bears particularized guarantees of trustworthiness so that "the test of cross-examination would be of ma 2006You are further instructed to disregard any other statement attributed to Lewis 4 The applicable progeny of Seales includes Harrington v. State, 793 So. 2d 626 (Miss. 2001) (finding after examination of an alleged confrontation clause error that the statements were inadmissible since they did not satisfy the Roberts reliability test as set out in Seales); Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 1159 (Miss. 2000) (same); Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 15, 21 (Miss. 1996) (if the statement bears particularized guarantees of trustworthiness so that “the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility,” | 2 | 4 |
Barnette v. Stategreen2 sentences1998In Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 791 (Miss. 1985), the Court held that "a defendant's confrontation clause rights were violated where the analyst who performed certain tests was not available to testify." Hull, 687 So.2d at 717 . 1996In Barnette v. State, 481 So. 2d 788, 791 (Miss. 1985), the Court held that "a defendant's confrontation clause rights were violated where the analyst who performed certain tests was not available to testify." Hull, 687 So. 2d at 717 . | 2 | 4 |
Danielle Hingle v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2018Moreover, the Court held "that a Confrontation Clause violation is a violation of a fundamental, substantive right." Id. 2018Moreover, the Court held "that a Confrontation Clause violation is a violation of a fundamental, substantive right." Id. | 2 | 3 |
| Earl v. Stategreen | 2 | 3 |
| Maryland v. Craiggreen | 2 | 2 |
| Goff v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Beecham v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Gray v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| States v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Baker v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bailey v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Ahmad v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Stockstill v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Contreras v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Murphy v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
California v. Green
red
2 sentences2017Further, no Confrontation Clause violation will be found where defense counsel was not "significantly limited in any way in the scope or nature of his cross-examination of the witness ... at the preliminary hearing." California v. Green , 399 U.S. 149 , 166, 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). ¶ 11. 2017Further, no Confrontation Clause violation will be found where defense counsel was not "significantly limited in any way in the scope or nature of his cross-examination of the witness ... at the preliminary hearing." California v. Green , 399 U.S. 149 , 166, 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). ¶ 11. | 9 | 1988–2017 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2015There, the Mississippi Supreme Court held the death certificate was not subject to Confrontation Clause analysis because it was “a nontestimonial record of vital statistics, ‘created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial.’ ” Id. at 1236 (¶ 42) (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 324 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 ). 2 We cannot say that Andrews’s means of injury was shown on the death certificate as “struck in head” in order to prove a fact at trial. 2015There, the Mississippi Supreme Court held the death certificate was not subject to Confrontation Clause analysis because it was “a nontestimonial record of vital statistics, ‘created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial.’ ” Id. at 1236 (¶ 42) (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 324 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 ). 2 We cannot say that Andrews’s means of injury was shown on the death certificate as “struck in head” in order to prove a fact at trial. | 6 | 2007–2018 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2008Bishop relies on Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), a case decided under Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), which provided that a hearsay statement not falling within a deeply-rooted hearsay exception was not admissible under the confrontation clause unless it contained substantially particularized guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the firmly-rooted hearsay exceptions. 2008Bishop relies on Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), a case decided under Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), which provided that a hearsay statement not falling within a deeply-rooted hearsay exception was not admissible under the confrontation clause unless it contained substantially particularized guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the firmly-rooted hearsay exceptions. | 5 | 1986–2008 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2018Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State , 119 So.3d 317 , 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State , 99 So.3d 159 , 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State , 48 So.3d 454 , 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State , 45 So.3d 216 , 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State , 998 So.2d 971 , 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 2018Harmless-error review was applied in the following cases: Avery v. State , 119 So.3d 317 , 320 (Miss. 2013) (failure to sequester a witness); Young v. State , 99 So.3d 159 , 163 (Miss. 2012) (denial of impeachment of a hostile witness); Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (Miss. 2012) (Confrontation-Clause violation); White v. State , 48 So.3d 454 , 458 (Miss. 2010) (admission of hearsay); Pitchford v. State , 45 So.3d 216 , 235 (Miss. 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct); Walton v. State , 998 So.2d 971 , 976 (Miss. 2008) (admission of statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 | 3 | 2010–2018 |
| Bruton v. United States green | 3 | 1986–2008 |
| Doe v. Doe green | 3 | 1995–1997 |
| Coy v. Iowa green | 2 | 2023–2023 |
| Burdette v. State green | 2 | 2010–2014 |
| Kentucky v. Stincer green | 2 | 2010–2011 |
| United States v. Owens green | 2 | 2010–2011 |
| Smith v. State green | 2 | 2006–2008 |
| Harrington v. State green | 2 | 2006–2008 |
| Ponthieux v. State green | 2 | 1998–2000 |
| Hull v. State green | 2 | 1996–1998 |
| Parker v. State green | 2 | 1995–1997 |
| Davis v. Alaska green | 2 | 1988–1991 |
| Boyd v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.