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.
22 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Luu v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2010Nor did the Constitution require defendant's presence: "if the proceeding involves only legal questions, the defendant's absence would not impact his defense because it is likely he would not contribute any expertise on such matters." Moe, 536 F.3d at 830 ; see generally Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992) ("Due process only 'requires that a defendant be allowed to be present to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence.'") (quoting Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987), and a prior case, and citing United States 2009People v. Harris, 914 P.2d 434, 437 (Colo.App.1995); see also Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992) (due process requires that the defendant be allowed to be present at trial to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his or her absence). | 5 | 10 |
Kentucky v. Stincergreen2 sentences2021“In other words, the defendant’s presence is only required ‘to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by [her] absence.’” Id. (quoting Stincer, 482 U.S. at 745 ). 2021“In other words, the defendant’s presence is only required ‘to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by [her] absence.’” Id. (quoting Stincer, 482 U.S. at 745 ). | 2 | 6 |
Snyder v. Massachusettsgreen2 sentences2018In other words, the defendant's presence is only required "to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence." Id. (quoting Snyder , 291 U.S. at 108 , 54 S.Ct. 330 ). 2018In other words, the defendant's presence is only required "to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence." Id. (quoting Snyder , 291 U.S. at 108 , 54 S.Ct. 330 ). | 2 | 6 |
United States v. Gagnongreen2 sentences2018See Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 526 (stating that the right to be present is rooted in due process principles “in some situations where the defendant is not actually confronting witnesses or evidence against him”). “[D]ue process clearly requires that a defendant be allowed to be present ‘to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence.’” Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 108 (1934)). 2010Nor did the Constitution require defendant's presence: "if the proceeding involves only legal questions, the defendant's absence would not impact his defense because it is likely he would not contribute any expertise on such matters." Moe, 536 F.3d at 830 ; see generally Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992) ("Due process only 'requires that a defendant be allowed to be present to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence.'") (quoting Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987), and a prior case, and citing United States | 2 | 3 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2016Luu , 841 P.2d at 275 ; People v. Harris , 914 P.2d 434, 437 (Colo. App. 1995). 2009People v. Harris, 914 P.2d 434, 437 (Colo.App.1995); see also Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992) (due process requires that the defendant be allowed to be present at trial to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his or her absence). | 2 | 3 |
Crandell v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Seq, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara 2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara | 2 | 2 |
State v. KIRK N.green2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara 2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara | 2 | 2 |
In Re JPJgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara 2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara | 2 | 2 |
John Wayne Kemplen v. State of Marylandgreen2 sentences2009Seq, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara 2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Russell Sawayagreen2 sentences2009Seq, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara 2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara | 2 | 2 |
People v. Eric J.green2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara 2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara | 2 | 2 |
In Re GAULTgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara 2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara | 1 | 2 |
Malloy v. Hogangreen2 sentences2014Thus, a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure. 482 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 132 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) (Roberts, J., dissenting) (noting the privilege of presence goes deeper than the mere opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and stating "the right is fundamental and assures him who stands in jeopardy that he may in person, 2014Thus, a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure. 482 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 132 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) (Roberts, J., dissenting) (noting the privilege of presence goes deeper than the mere opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and stating "the right is fundamental and assures him who stands in jeopardy that he may in person, | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gallegosgreen2 sentences2010People v. Gallegos, 226 P.3d 1112, 1120 (Colo.App.2009) (citing Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992)). 2010People v. Gallegos, 226 P.3d 1112, 1120 (Colo.App.2009) (citing Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vegagreen1 sentence2009Conversely, in People v. Vega, a division of this court held that there is no constitutional right to personal presence when the trial court responds to jury questions unless “a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by [the defendant’s] absence.” People v. Vega, 870 P.2d 549, 554 (Colo.App.1993), aff'd on other grounds, 893 P.2d 107 (Colo.1995). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Isomgreen1 sentence2009"However, due process does not require the defendant's presence when it would be useless or only slightly beneficial." People v. Isom, 140 P.3d 100, 104 (Colo.App.2005). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Renfrowgreen2 sentences2000People v. Emig, supra (right to be present applies when the court removes an illegal term from the sentence so that, as modified, the sentence conforms with the law); see also People v. Renfrow, 199 Colo. 101 , 605 P.2d 915 (1980) (defendant entitled to be present when the sentence is modified by reducing it); but see Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271 (Colo.1992) (due process only requires that a defendant be present to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence). 2000People v. Emig, supra (right to be present applies when the court removes an illegal term from the sentence so that, as modified, the sentence conforms with the law); see also People v. Renfrow, 199 Colo. 101 , 605 P.2d 915 (1980) (defendant entitled to be present when the sentence is modified by reducing it); but see Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271 (Colo.1992) (due process only requires that a defendant be present to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence). | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences1992With these guarantees in mind, harmless error analysis requires evaluation of whether the alleged error "was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 ; see Fulminante, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1266 . 1992With these guarantees in mind, harmless error analysis requires evaluation of whether the alleged error “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 ; see Fulminante, _ U.S. at _, 111 S.Ct. at 1266 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Luu v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2010Nor did the Constitution require defendant's presence: "if the proceeding involves only legal questions, the defendant's absence would not impact his defense because it is likely he would not contribute any expertise on such matters." Moe, 536 F.3d at 830 ; see generally Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992) ("Due process only 'requires that a defendant be allowed to be present to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence.'") (quoting Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987), and a prior case, and citing United States 2009People v. Harris, 914 P.2d 434, 437 (Colo.App.1995); see also Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992) (due process requires that the defendant be allowed to be present at trial to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his or her absence). | 1 | 10 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re J.P.J.
green
2 sentences2009Seq, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara 2009See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (discussing parents' right to notice when custody is at issue); United States v. Sawaya, 486 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1973); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir.1970); In re J.P.J., 109 Ill.2d 129 , 92 Ill.Dec. 802 , 485 N.E.2d 848, 850 (1985); Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1975); see also In re Eric J., 199 Cal.App.3d 624 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 861, 865 (1988) (right of parents to be present at a juvenile's hearing does not originate in the parents' due process rights; rather, if prepara | 2 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Moe
green
1 sentence2010Nor did the Constitution require defendant's presence: "if the proceeding involves only legal questions, the defendant's absence would not impact his defense because it is likely he would not contribute any expertise on such matters." Moe, 536 F.3d at 830 ; see generally Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 275 (Colo.1992) ("Due process only 'requires that a defendant be allowed to be present to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence.'") (quoting Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987), and a prior case, and citing United States | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Vega v. People
green
1 sentence2009Conversely, in People v. Vega, a division of this court held that there is no constitutional right to personal presence when the trial court responds to jury questions unless “a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by [the defendant’s] absence.” People v. Vega, 870 P.2d 549, 554 (Colo.App.1993), aff'd on other grounds, 893 P.2d 107 (Colo.1995). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1992With these guarantees in mind, harmless error analysis requires evaluation of whether the alleged error "was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 ; see Fulminante, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1266 . 1992With these guarantees in mind, harmless error analysis requires evaluation of whether the alleged error "was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 ; see Fulminante, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1266 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Matter of Rich
green
1 sentence1989In re Rich, supra. The record here reveals the trial court did everything possible to give the respondent the opportunity for a fair and just hearing. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wilmore v. Annear
green
2 sentences1968This position has not always prevailed, for we note that in Wilmore v. Annear, 100 Colo. 106 , 65 P.2d 1433 , the court held that: "* * * If constitutional power to do an act is nonexistent it cannot be acquired by legislative assertion or attempted exercise of such power; if it is existent, it is not lost by a failure, for however long a time, to exercise it." (Emphasis added.) My differences with the majority relate to the question of whether the rule as to burden of proof laid down in the decisions relied upon in its opinion, under the circumstances of the court procedures then being follow 1968This position has not always prevailed, for we note that in Wilmore v. Annear, 100 Colo. 106 , 65 P.2d 1433 , the court held that: "* * * If constitutional power to do an act is nonexistent it cannot be acquired by legislative assertion or attempted exercise of such power; if it is existent, it is not lost by a failure, for however long a time, to exercise it." (Emphasis added.) My differences with the majority relate to the question of whether the rule as to burden of proof laid down in the decisions relied upon in its opinion, under the circumstances of the court procedures then being follow | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Powell v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1968Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 . 1968Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.