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 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences2002Cf. People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 214-216 , 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000). [3] The jury found that Dr. Kittur was not negligent. [4] People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348 , 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47 , 293 F. 1013 (1923). [5] The United States Supreme Court has rejected the Frye test of "general acceptance within the scientific community," adopting instead a more relaxed reliability assessment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2002Cf. People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 214-216 , 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000). [3] The jury found that Dr. Kittur was not negligent. [4] People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348 , 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47 , 293 F. 1013 (1923). [5] The United States Supreme Court has rejected the Frye test of "general acceptance within the scientific community," adopting instead a more relaxed reliability assessment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. | 2 | 7 |
People v. Haywoodgreen2 sentences2000NOTES [1] Graves' disease is an autoimmune disease that causes overstimulation of the thyroid gland. [2] People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348 , 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); Frye v. United States, 54 U.S. App. D.C. 46 , 47, 293 F. 1013 (1923). [3] In Haywood, supra at 221, n. 1 , 530 N.W.2d 497 , this Court recognized that in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. [579], 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the United States Supreme Court held the Frye test was superseded by the adoption of FRE 702. 2000NOTES [1] Graves' disease is an autoimmune disease that causes overstimulation of the thyroid gland. [2] People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348 , 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); Frye v. United States, 54 U.S. App. D.C. 46 , 47, 293 F. 1013 (1923). [3] In Haywood, supra at 221, n. 1 , 530 N.W.2d 497 , this Court recognized that in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. [579], 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the United States Supreme Court held the Frye test was superseded by the adoption of FRE 702. | 2 | 2 |
State v. MacKgreen2 sentences1990People v Davis, 343 Mich 348 ; 72 NW2d 269 (1955); Frye v United States, 54 App DC 46; 293 F 1013 (1923). [21] See, generally, Scholder, The argument against use of hypnosis to improve or enhance the memory of courtroom witnesses, 7 Law & Psychology R 71 (1982); Curato, Plifka & Schroeder, Recent decision: Evidence: Hypnotically enhanced testimony — A question of admissibility or credibility for criminal courts? 58 Notre Dame L R 101 (1982); comment, Hypnosis — Should the courts snap out of it? — A closer look at the critical issues, 44 Ohio State L J 1053 (1983). [22] Rock v Arkansas, 483 US 1982See, e.g., State v Mena, 128 Ariz 226, 231; 624 P2d 1274 (1981); People v Shirley, 31 Cal 3d 18, 51; 181 Cal Rptr 243, 263; 641 P2d 775 (1982), cert den 458 US 1125 ; 103 S Ct 133 ; 74 L Ed 2d 114 (1982); State v Mack, 292 NW2d 764, 771 (Minn, 1980); State v Palmer, 210 Neb 206; 313 NW2d 648, 655 (1981); Commonwealth v Nazarovitch, 496 Pa 97; 436 A2d 170, 171-178 (1981). 5 Rhonna Burns agreed to undergo hypnosis at the request of the police. | 2 | 2 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2024In 1993, however, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the Frye test was displaced by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and it adopted a new test for the admission of expert opinion testimony under the federal rules in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 (1993). 2024In 1993, however, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the Frye test was displaced by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and it adopted a new test for the admission of expert opinion testimony under the federal rules in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 (1993). | 1 | 7 |
People v. Barbaragreen2 sentences1986The author of the opinion for affirmance states that she does "not advocate that this Court abandon the Frye test,” but would "reject the requirement that the reliability of novel scientific evidence must be established by disinterested witnesses, People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977), and People v Tobey, 401 Mich 141 ; 257 NW2d 537 (1977), that is, those whose livelihood is not 'intimately connected with the new technique.’ ” Post at 511. 1986The author of the opinion for affirmance states that she does "not advocate that this Court abandon the Frye test,” but would "reject the requirement that the reliability of novel scientific evidence must be established by disinterested witnesses, People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977), and People v Tobey, 401 Mich 141 ; 257 NW2d 537 (1977), that is, those whose livelihood is not 'intimately connected with the new technique.’ ” Post at 511. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Chamberlaingreen2 sentences1995Justice BRICKLEY, in justifying *388 the admissibility of some expert testimony, stated: "so long as the purpose of the evidence is merely to offer an explanation for certain behavior, the Davis/Frye test is inapplicable." Id. at 721. 1995Justice Brickley, in justify ing the admissibility of some expert testimony, stated: "so long as the purpose of the evidence is merely to offer an explanation for certain behavior, the Davis/Frye test is inapplicable.” Id. at 721. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Beckleygreen2 sentences1995Justice BOYLE agreed with Justice BRICKLEY to the extent that [the opinion] holds 1) that the Davis/Frye test is inapplicable to the expert testimony in question, 2) that syndrome evidence is not admissible to prove that sexual abuse occurred, 3) that an expert may not testify that a child is telling the truth, 4) that an expert may testify that the behavior of the complainant in the particular case is consistent with that of children who report sexual abuse. [ Beckley at 734.][ [10] ] *367 Justice BOYLE wrote separately because of her concern "that the rationale employed in the lead opinion m 1995Justice BOYLE agreed with Justice BRICKLEY to the extent that [the opinion] holds 1) that the Davis/Frye test is inapplicable to the expert testimony in question, 2) that syndrome evidence is not admissible to prove that sexual abuse occurred, 3) that an expert may not testify that a child is telling the truth, 4) that an expert may testify that the behavior of the complainant in the particular case is consistent with that of children who report sexual abuse. [ Beckley at 734.][ [10] ] *367 Justice BOYLE wrote separately because of her concern "that the rationale employed in the lead opinion m | 1 | 1 |
Bechtel v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Bechtel v State, 840 P2d 1, 7 (Okla Crim App, 1992). [16] Opinions of Justices BRICKLEY and BOYLE, respectively. [17] People v Davis, 343 Mich 348 ; 72 NW2d 269 (1955); Frye v United States, 54 App DC 46; 293 F 1013 (1923). [18] Defendant does not contend that the Davis/Frye rule should apply to battered woman evidence. [19] Joined by Justices LEVIN and GRIFFIN. [20] Justice BRICKLEY would further hold that the expert may not introduce new facts on the basis of personal observations unless the evidence otherwise would be admissible. [21] Joined by Justice CAVANAGH. [22] Joined by then-Chief Ju | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1986In a lead case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine ruled that novel scientific evidence would be admissible into evidence when "the testimony to be given is relevant and will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." State v Williams, 388 A2d 500, 504 (Me, 1978). 1986In a lead case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine ruled that novel scientific evidence would be admissible into evidence when "the testimony to be given is relevant and will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” State v Williams, 388 A2d 500, 504 (Me, 1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Nazarovitchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Palmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Linngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cain v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United States
red
2 sentences2002Cf. People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 214-216 , 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000). [3] The jury found that Dr. Kittur was not negligent. [4] People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348 , 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47 , 293 F. 1013 (1923). [5] The United States Supreme Court has rejected the Frye test of "general acceptance within the scientific community," adopting instead a more relaxed reliability assessment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2002Cf. People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 214-216 , 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000). [3] The jury found that Dr. Kittur was not negligent. [4] People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348 , 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47 , 293 F. 1013 (1923). [5] The United States Supreme Court has rejected the Frye test of "general acceptance within the scientific community," adopting instead a more relaxed reliability assessment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. | 3 | 2000–2007 |
State v. Mena
green
2 sentences1990See State v Mena, 128 Ariz 226; 624 P2d 1274 (1981); State ex rel Collins v Superior Court, 132 Ariz 180; 644 P2d 1266 (1982); Polk v State, 48 Md App 382; 427 A2d 1041 (1981). 1990See State v Mena, 128 Ariz 226; 624 P2d 1274 (1981); State ex rel Collins v Superior Court, 132 Ariz 180; 644 P2d 1266 (1982); Polk v State, 48 Md App 382; 427 A2d 1041 (1981). | 2 | 1982–1990 |
People v. Tobey
green
2 sentences1986The author of the opinion for affirmance states that she does "not advocate that this Court abandon the Frye test,” but would "reject the requirement that the reliability of novel scientific evidence must be established by disinterested witnesses, People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977), and People v Tobey, 401 Mich 141 ; 257 NW2d 537 (1977), that is, those whose livelihood is not 'intimately connected with the new technique.’ ” Post at 511. 1986The author of the opinion for affirmance states that she does "not advocate that this Court abandon the Frye test,” but would "reject the requirement that the reliability of novel scientific evidence must be established by disinterested witnesses, People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352 ; 255 NW2d 171 (1977), and People v Tobey, 401 Mich 141 ; 257 NW2d 537 (1977), that is, those whose livelihood is not 'intimately connected with the new technique.’ ” Post at 511. | 2 | 1981–1986 |
People v. Adams
green
2 sentences2003Defendant contends that [People v] Adams [ 195 Mich App 267 ; 489 NW2d 192 (1992)] did not subject the statistical analysis portion of the testing to Davis/Frye and thus it was erroneously decided. 2003Defendant contends that [People v] Adams [ 195 Mich App 267 ; 489 NW2d 192 (1992)] did not subject the statistical analysis portion of the testing to Davis/Frye and thus it was erroneously decided. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Chandler
green
2 sentences2003In People v Chandler, 211 Mich App 604, 611 ; 536 NW2d 799 (1995), this Court stated: Defendant also argues that dna statistical analysis evidence must survive scrutiny under the Davis/Frye test. 2003In People v Chandler, 211 Mich App 604, 611 ; 536 NW2d 799 (1995), this Court stated: Defendant also argues that dna statistical analysis evidence must survive scrutiny under the Davis/Frye test. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Carter
green
2 sentences2002Cf. People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 214-216 , 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000). [3] The jury found that Dr. Kittur was not negligent. [4] People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348 , 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47 , 293 F. 1013 (1923). [5] The United States Supreme Court has rejected the Frye test of "general acceptance within the scientific community," adopting instead a more relaxed reliability assessment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2002Cf. People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 214-216 , 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000). [3] The jury found that Dr. Kittur was not negligent. [4] People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348 , 72 N.W.2d 269 (1955); Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47 , 293 F. 1013 (1923). [5] The United States Supreme Court has rejected the Frye test of "general acceptance within the scientific community," adopting instead a more relaxed reliability assessment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Peterson
green
2 sentences2002People v Peterson, 450 Mich 349, 369 ; 537 NW2d 857 (1995), amended 450 Mich 1212 (1995). 2002People v Peterson, 450 Mich 349, 369 ; 537 NW2d 857 (1995), amended 450 Mich 1212 (1995). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1995The Superior Court of New Jersey in State v Williams, 252 NJ Super 369; 599 A2d 960 (1991), also held that pcr results were admissible under a version of the Frye test. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Russell
green
2 sentences1995In State v Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 54; 882 P2d 747 (1994), the Washington Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of the results of the pcr method under the Frye rule. 1995In State v Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 54; 882 P2d 747 (1994), the Washington Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of the results of the pcr method under the Frye rule. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Rock v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences1990People v Davis, 343 Mich 348 ; 72 NW2d 269 (1955); Frye v United States, 54 App DC 46; 293 F 1013 (1923). [21] See, generally, Scholder, The argument against use of hypnosis to improve or enhance the memory of courtroom witnesses, 7 Law & Psychology R 71 (1982); Curato, Plifka & Schroeder, Recent decision: Evidence: Hypnotically enhanced testimony — A question of admissibility or credibility for criminal courts? 58 Notre Dame L R 101 (1982); comment, Hypnosis — Should the courts snap out of it? — A closer look at the critical issues, 44 Ohio State L J 1053 (1983). [22] Rock v Arkansas, 483 US 1990People v Davis, 343 Mich 348 ; 72 NW2d 269 (1955); Frye v United States, 54 App DC 46; 293 F 1013 (1923). [21] See, generally, Scholder, The argument against use of hypnosis to improve or enhance the memory of courtroom witnesses, 7 Law & Psychology R 71 (1982); Curato, Plifka & Schroeder, Recent decision: Evidence: Hypnotically enhanced testimony — A question of admissibility or credibility for criminal courts? 58 Notre Dame L R 101 (1982); comment, Hypnosis — Should the courts snap out of it? — A closer look at the critical issues, 44 Ohio State L J 1053 (1983). [22] Rock v Arkansas, 483 US | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Nixon
green
2 sentences1990Michigan is among those states that initially adopted a rule of inadmissibility per se but thereafter allowed a witness to testify regarding facts recalled prior to hypnosis, Nixon, supra; see also Collins, supra. As already suggested, permitting a witness to testify as to identification of a defendant after he has been hypnotized is logically inconsistent with the Frye rule, since there is not general acceptance in the scientific community of the reliability of posthypnotic testimony. 1990Michigan is among those states that initially adopted a rule of inadmissibility per se but thereafter allowed a witness to testify regarding facts recalled prior to hypnosis, Nixon, supra; see also Collins, supra. As already suggested, permitting a witness to testify as to identification of a defendant after he has been hypnotized is logically inconsistent with the Frye rule, since there is not general acceptance in the scientific community of the reliability of posthypnotic testimony. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences1990We would affirm the conviction below. i In People v Gonzales, 415 Mich 615 ; 329 NW2d 743 (1982), modified 417 Mich 968 (1983), we applied the Frye test to hypnosis and concluded that testimony which had been "tainted” by hypnosis should be excluded from criminal trials. 1990We would affirm the conviction below. i In People v Gonzales, 415 Mich 615 ; 329 NW2d 743 (1982), modified 417 Mich 968 (1983), we applied the Frye test to hypnosis and concluded that testimony which had been "tainted” by hypnosis should be excluded from criminal trials. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Kachar
green
2 sentences1990Frye, p 47. [4] Factors which might be relevant in making this determination would be analogous to those set forth in People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 95-96 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977). 1990Frye, p 47. [4] Factors which might be relevant in making this determination would be analogous to those set forth in People v Kachar, 400 Mich 78, 95-96 ; 252 NW2d 807 (1977). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.
green
2 sentences1990See State v Mena, 128 Ariz 226; 624 P2d 1274 (1981); State ex rel Collins v Superior Court, 132 Ariz 180; 644 P2d 1266 (1982); Polk v State, 48 Md App 382; 427 A2d 1041 (1981). 1990See State v Mena, 128 Ariz 226; 624 P2d 1274 (1981); State ex rel Collins v Superior Court, 132 Ariz 180; 644 P2d 1266 (1982); Polk v State, 48 Md App 382; 427 A2d 1041 (1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Polk v. State
green
2 sentences1990See State v Mena, 128 Ariz 226; 624 P2d 1274 (1981); State ex rel Collins v Superior Court, 132 Ariz 180; 644 P2d 1266 (1982); Polk v State, 48 Md App 382; 427 A2d 1041 (1981). 1990See State v Mena, 128 Ariz 226; 624 P2d 1274 (1981); State ex rel Collins v Superior Court, 132 Ariz 180; 644 P2d 1266 (1982); Polk v State, 48 Md App 382; 427 A2d 1041 (1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Young
green
2 sentences1990The Davis/Frye test seeks to ensure that the jury is the ultimate factfinder and that it will not "abandon its responsibility to decide the critical issues and simply adopt the judgment of the expert [because of] an inability to accurately appraise the validity of the underlying science.” 42 Although the Frye test has been criticized by commentators, this Court reaffirmed its application in People v Young, 418 Mich 1 ; 340 NW2d 805 (1983). 43 The Davis/Frye test has been applied in Michigan to various scientific devices and techniques; 44 however, as a general rule, the Davis/ Frye test has no 1990The Davis/Frye test seeks to ensure that the jury is the ultimate factfinder and that it will not "abandon its responsibility to decide the critical issues and simply adopt the judgment of the expert [because of] an inability to accurately appraise the validity of the underlying science.” 42 Although the Frye test has been criticized by commentators, this Court reaffirmed its application in People v Young, 418 Mich 1 ; 340 NW2d 805 (1983). 43 The Davis/Frye test has been applied in Michigan to various scientific devices and techniques; 44 however, as a general rule, the Davis/ Frye test has no | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Olen v. Purdue
green
2 sentences1989The Supreme Court of Florida recognizes the Frye standard, but in the recent case of Bundy v State, 455 So 2d 330, 349 (Fla, 1984), cert den, 476 US 1109 , 106 S Ct 1958 , 90 L Ed 2d 366 (1986), rejected the applicability of Frye to the admission of bite mark comparison and stated the following: "The evidence in question is based on the examinations of impressions made by human teeth and their comparison with models of known human teeth for the purpose of determining whether the impressions were or probably were or could have been made by a particular individual. 1989The Supreme Court of Florida recognizes the Frye standard, but in the recent case of Bundy v State, 455 So 2d 330, 349 (Fla, 1984), cert den, 476 US 1109 , 106 S Ct 1958 , 90 L Ed 2d 366 (1986), rejected the applicability of Frye to the admission of bite mark comparison and stated the following: "The evidence in question is based on the examinations of impressions made by human teeth and their comparison with models of known human teeth for the purpose of determining whether the impressions were or probably were or could have been made by a particular individual. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Harriman v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1989The Supreme Court of Florida recognizes the Frye standard, but in the recent case of Bundy v State, 455 So 2d 330, 349 (Fla, 1984), cert den, 476 US 1109 , 106 S Ct 1958 , 90 L Ed 2d 366 (1986), rejected the applicability of Frye to the admission of bite mark comparison and stated the following: "The evidence in question is based on the examinations of impressions made by human teeth and their comparison with models of known human teeth for the purpose of determining whether the impressions were or probably were or could have been made by a particular individual. 1989The Supreme Court of Florida recognizes the Frye standard, but in the recent case of Bundy v State, 455 So 2d 330, 349 (Fla, 1984), cert den, 476 US 1109 , 106 S Ct 1958 , 90 L Ed 2d 366 (1986), rejected the applicability of Frye to the admission of bite mark comparison and stated the following: "The evidence in question is based on the examinations of impressions made by human teeth and their comparison with models of known human teeth for the purpose of determining whether the impressions were or probably were or could have been made by a particular individual. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Matlock
green
2 sentences1988In People v Matlock, 153 Mich App 171 ; 395 NW2d 274 (1986), the defendant’s conviction was reversed on the ground that the victim’s rape counselor vouched for the credibility of the victim. 1988In People v Matlock, 153 Mich App 171 ; 395 NW2d 274 (1986), the defendant’s conviction was reversed on the ground that the victim’s rape counselor vouched for the credibility of the victim. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Messinger v. United States
green
2 sentences1986In Coppolino v State, 223 So 2d 68 (Fla App, 1969), app dis 234 So 2d 120 (Fla, 1969), cert den 399 US 927 (1970), for example, the Florida District Court of Appeals approved the admission of the results of tests formulated specifically for the case (test to detect the presence of succinylcholine chloride in body tissue), while specifically noting that Florida continued to adhere to the Frye rule. 1986In Coppolino v State, 223 So 2d 68 (Fla App, 1969), app dis 234 So 2d 120 (Fla, 1969), cert den 399 US 927 (1970), for example, the Florida District Court of Appeals approved the admission of the results of tests formulated specifically for the case (test to detect the presence of succinylcholine chloride in body tissue), while specifically noting that Florida continued to adhere to the Frye rule. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Lykus
green
2 sentences1986The record in that case only indicated that the reliability of the test was accepted by the state’s witness and not by those presented by the defense._ The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court modified the Frye Standard in Commonwealth v Lykus, 367 Mass 191; 327 NE2d 671 (1975), stating that general acceptance could be shown if it were only among those who would be expected to be familiar with its use. 1986The record in that case only indicated that the reliability of the test was accepted by the state’s witness and not by those presented by the defense._ The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court modified the Frye Standard in Commonwealth v Lykus, 367 Mass 191; 327 NE2d 671 (1975), stating that general acceptance could be shown if it were only among those who would be expected to be familiar with its use. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Liddell green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Saldana green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Marks green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Huey green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Bledsoe green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Taylor green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| In re Disbarment of Resnick green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Cochrane v. Marx green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Chin v. United States green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| People v. Powell green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Hall green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Morse green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Watkins green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Wesley neutral | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Kenney green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Walker green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Becker green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| State v. White green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| People v. Ford green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.