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.
152 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 65 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiayellow2 sentences2026In doing so, we apply the constitutional harmless error inquiry set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 2026In doing so, we apply the constitutional harmless error inquiry set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 9 | 60 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2025Thus, even if trial counsel had made an effective hearsay objection to the question and had successfully moved to strike Murphy's testimony on that point and had gotten a limiting instruction on that matter, Pruitt fails to show prejudice. 20 And even assuming that we should apply the constitutional harmless error standard defined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967), (see State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]), we find the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this error did not affect the outcome of the trial in 2025Thus, even if trial counsel had made an effective hearsay objection to the question and had successfully moved to strike Murphy's testimony on that point and had gotten a limiting instruction on that matter, Pruitt fails to show prejudice. 20 And even assuming that we should apply the constitutional harmless error standard defined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967), (see State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]), we find the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this error did not affect the outcome of the trial in | 8 | 46 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2026"When a defendant's right to be present is violated, an appellate court determines whether the error requires reversal by applying the constitutional harmless error standard." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 740 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016); see State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 968 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). 2026"When a defendant's right to be present is violated, an appellate court determines whether the error requires reversal by applying the constitutional harmless error standard." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 740 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016); see State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 968 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Bridgesgreen2 sentences2015In conducting this analysis, the standard of constitutional harmlessness must be met to avoid a finding of reversible error. 298 Kan. at 1050-51 ; see also State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 1012-13 , 306 P.3d 244 (2013) (once the State meets the higher constitutional harmless error standard, the lower statutory standard in K.S.A. 60-261 is necessarily met). 2015In conducting this analysis, the standard of constitutional harmlessness must be met to avoid a finding of reversible error. 298 Kan. at 1050-51 ; see also State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 1012-13 , 306 P.3d 244 (2013) (once the State meets the higher constitutional harmless error standard, the lower statutory standard in K.S.A. 60-261 is necessarily met). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Trujillogreen2 sentences2015In State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013), after noting both the pre-Williams and Williams statements of the test, the court said that it did “not discern a practical difference between the stated tests.” Accordingly, the court said that it had “opt[ed] to omit the heal possibility’ language to avoid any confu sion with the constitutional harmless error test,” which provides that an error is harmless “where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.” 296 Kan. at 631 . 2015In State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013), after noting both the pre-Williams and Williams statements of the test, the court said that it did “not discern a practical difference between the stated tests.” Accordingly, the court said that it had “opt[ed] to omit the heal possibility’ language to avoid any confu sion with the constitutional harmless error test,” which provides that an error is harmless “where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.” 296 Kan. at 631 . | 5 | 7 |
State v. Santos-Vegagreen2 sentences2015See State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 979-80 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013); see also State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (noting court’s decision to omit the ‘real possibility’ language from Voyles test to avoid confusion with the constitutional harmless error test).” Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 18 .’ State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 596 , 331 P.3d 815 (2014).” State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170, 185-86 , 339 P.3d 795 (2014). 2014See State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 979-80 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013); see also State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (noting court’s decision to omit the ‘real possibility’ language from Voyles test to avoid confusion with the constitutional harmless error test).” Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 18 . | 3 | 6 |
State v. Blansettgreen2 sentences2026Bentley, 317 Kan. at 233-34. 2024As we recognized there, a constitutional harmless-error standard is appropriate when the trial court "fails to secure a verdict on some elements of the crime, rather than all of them" and the element "was not contested by the defendant and would not be contested if the conviction were vacated and a new trial ordered." 317 Kan. at 233 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 [1999]). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Lowrancegreen2 sentences2016See State v. Lowrance, 298 Kan. 274, 282 , 312 P.3d 328 (2013) (when State meets constitutional harmlessness test it necessarily also meets lower statutory harmlessness test as well). 2016See State v. Lowrance, 298 Kan. 274, 282 , 312 P.3d 328 (2013) (when State meets constitutional harmlessness test it necessarily also meets lower statutory harmlessness test as well). | 3 | 3 |
Ward v. Kansasgreen2 sentences2014“Under the constitutional harmless error analysis defined in Chapman , ‘the error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). 2014Williams, 295 Kan. at 515-16 ; see State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (noting that past cases had frequently stated the test as whether “ The reviewing court is firmly convinced that there is a real possibility the jury would have returned a different verdict if the instruction had been given’ ” and determining that in the future the “ real possibility’ ” language should be omitted to avoid any confusion with the constitutional harmless error test set forth in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 [2012]). | 2 | 13 |
State v. Bolze-Sanngreen2 sentences2020"Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if '"the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to 8 the verdict."' [State v.] Verser, 299 Kan. [776,] 789[, 326 P.3d 1046 (2014)] (quoting [State v.] Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl ¶ 6[, 256 P.3d 801 2011 ]). " Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 216 . 2017As in State v. Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. 198, 216 , 352 P.3d 511 (2015), "[b]ecause we agree with the State that the error was harmless, we will also move directly to a harmless error review." Therefore, we will assume error and apply the constitutional harmless error standard from Chapman v. 25 California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Williams, 306 Kan. 175 , 202, 392 P.3d 1267 (2017). 2025See State v. Williams, 306 Kan. 175 , 202, 392 P.3d 1267 (2017). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Guebaragreen2 sentences2026Thus, it determined the constitutional harmless error standard of review applies. 318 Kan. at 472. 2024Under that standard, we will reverse the defendant's conviction unless the State can show that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that "'there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" Guebara, 318 Kan. at 480. 11 A. The Prosecutors Did Not Misstate the Controlling Law on Self-Defense Under Kansas law, "[a] person is justified in the use of deadly force" when he or she "reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person." K.S.A. 21-5222(b). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Shieldsgreen2 sentences2024Under that standard, the State must show that "'there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" 315 Kan. at 836. 2024If we find error, we then apply the constitutional harmless-error standard which requires the State to show that "'there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" 315 Kan. at 836. | 2 | 2 |
Kleypas v. Kansasgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 , 257, 382 P.3d 373 (2016) (The constitutional harmless error 12 standard is defined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 [1967], under which standard, appellate courts "must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record—that is, that there is no reasonable possibility the error affected the jury's verdict of guilt."). 2024See State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 , 257, 382 P.3d 373 (2016) (The constitutional harmless error 12 standard is defined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 [1967], under which standard, appellate courts "must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record—that is, that there is no reasonable possibility the error affected the jury's verdict of guilt."). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2024Where, as here, the State benefitted from the errors, it has the burden of establishing the errors were harmless.' State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 905 , 914, 468 P.3d 323 (2020)." State v. Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , 172-73, 513 P.3d 1207 (2022). 2021"If any of the errors being aggregated are constitutional, the constitutional harmless error test of Chapman applies, and the party benefitting from the errors must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the cumulative effect of the errors did not affect the outcome." Thomas, 311 Kan. at 914. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Thorntongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Thornton, 312 Kan. 829 , 832, 481 P.3d 1212 (2021). 2026See State v. Thornton, 312 Kan. 829 , 832, 481 P.3d 1212 (2021). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Z.M.green2 sentences2026When applying the constitutional harmless error test, the State bears the burden to prove "'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict.'" State v. Z.M., 319 Kan. 297 , 317, 555 P.3d 190 (2024) (quoting State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 109, 378 P.3d 1060 (2016). 2026When applying the constitutional harmless error test, the State bears the burden to prove "'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict.'" State v. Z.M., 319 Kan. 297 , 317, 555 P.3d 190 (2024) (quoting State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 109, 378 P.3d 1060 (2016). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gallegosgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Gallegos, 313 Kan. 262 , 277, 485 P.3d 622 (2021) (issues not adequately briefed are deemed waived or abandoned). 21 The Kansas Supreme Court routinely reviews violations of the right to be present at a critical stage of the proceedings under the constitutional harmless error standard. 2025See State v. Gallegos, 313 Kan. 262 , 277, 485 P.3d 622 (2021) (issues not adequately briefed are deemed waived or abandoned). 21 The Kansas Supreme Court routinely reviews violations of the right to be present at a critical stage of the proceedings under the constitutional harmless error standard. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Bowengreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. De La Torregreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Carrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Richardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mendezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maryland v. Craiggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ramos v. Louisianagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andrewgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jarmongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Holleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brownleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McBroomgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carella v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Conwaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| – State v. Williams –green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alexander v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Armstronggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Herbelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Castleberrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seymour v. United States
green
2 sentences2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), which we have long summarized as follows: "[T]he error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). 2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), which we have long summarized as follows: "[T]he error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). | 16 | 2005–2017 |
Chapman v. California
green
2 sentences2026The court in Belone, having found a Confrontation Clause violation, applied the following standard in determining whether the error was harmless: "'If the fundamental failure infringes upon a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the trial court should apply the constitutional harmless error standard defined in Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , reh. 24 denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S. Ct. 1283 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 241 (1967),] in which case the error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt th 2021To make that second decision, the court must assess whether the fundamental failure affected a party's substantial rights under the harmless error statutes, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-261 and K.S.A. 60-2105, if a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution is not implicated; but if a constitutional right is implicated, the error must be assessed under the constitutional harmless error standard in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967). | 5 | 2011–2026 |
Neder v. United States
green
2 sentences2026Our Supreme Court found that this error was analogous to failing to submit an element of a charged crime to the jury and, because it was not a structural error, it was subject to the constitutional harmless error test from Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1999). 2026Our Supreme Court found that this error was analogous to failing to submit an element of a charged crime to the jury and, because it was not a structural error, it was subject to the constitutional harmless error test from Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1999). | 4 | 2004–2026 |
State v. Verser
green
2 sentences2020"Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if '"the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to 8 the verdict."' [State v.] Verser, 299 Kan. [776,] 789[, 326 P.3d 1046 (2014)] (quoting [State v.] Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl ¶ 6[, 256 P.3d 801 2011 ]). " Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 216 . 2016See 302 Kan. at 216 . *768 As we recently said: “Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if "’tire party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ ” Verser, 299 Kan. at 789 (quoting Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6); see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-23 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 4 | 2015–2020 |
State v. Corey
green
2 sentences2026"When a defendant's right to be present is violated, an appellate court determines whether the error requires reversal by applying the constitutional harmless error standard." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 740 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016); see State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 968 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). 2026"When a defendant's right to be present is violated, an appellate court determines whether the error requires reversal by applying the constitutional harmless error standard." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 740 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016); see State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 968 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). | 3 | 2021–2026 |
State v. Kleypas
yellow
2 sentences2017In Kleypas, we noted "subtle differences" between applying the constitutional harmless error test to prosecutorial misconduct during the guilt-phase proceeding and the penalty-phase proceeding. 272 Kan. at 1084-88 . 2017In Kleypas, this court recognized the "subtle differences" between applying the constitutional harmless error test to prosecutorial misconduct during the guilt phase proceeding and during the penalty-phase proceeding. 272 Kan. at 1084 . | 3 | 2005–2017 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2026Where a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial is implicated, an error must be assessed under the constitutional harmless error standard which asks whether "the State can demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.'" State v. Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , 164, 513 P.3d 1207 (2022); see also Carr, 314 Kan. at 773. 2026Where a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial is implicated, an error must be assessed under the constitutional harmless error standard which asks whether "the State can demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.'" State v. Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , 164, 513 P.3d 1207 (2022); see also Carr, 314 Kan. at 773. | 2 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Belone
green
2 sentences2026An appellate court will use the same analysis. . . .' [State v. ]Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011)]." Belone, 295 Kan. at 504 . 2015The court determined that the error was not harmless under the constitutional harmless error test, reversed Belone’s convictions, and remanded the case for a new trial. 295 Kan. at 504-05 . | 2 | 2015–2026 |
State v. Coleman
green
2 sentences2026Under this standard, the error is harmless "'if the State can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" Coleman, 318 Kan. at 303 (quoting State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 109, 378 P.3d 1060 [2016]). 2024"Under that test, 'prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict."'" Coleman, 318 Kan. at 303 (quoting State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 109, 378 P.3d 1060 [2016], which quoted State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). | 2 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Richardson
green
2 sentences2024Moore begins by asking us to adopt a more stringent constitutional harmless error standard from State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010) (adopting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9-10 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. 2024Moore begins by asking us to adopt a more stringent constitutional harmless error standard from State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010) (adopting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9-10 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. | 2 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2024Specifically, Boone claims he had a right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment and a right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, which were violated when Ivener testified as to his credibility—an issue for jury determination. 9 Under the higher constitutional harmless error standard, the State bears the burden to establish "'beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no impact on the trial's outcome, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 162 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012); State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 565 , 256 P.3d 2024Specifically, Boone claims he had a right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment and a right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, which were violated when Ivener testified as to his credibility—an issue for jury determination. 9 Under the higher constitutional harmless error standard, the State bears the burden to establish "'beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no impact on the trial's outcome, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 162 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012); State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 565 , 256 P.3d | 2 | 2022–2024 |
State v. Tully
green
2 sentences2022Tully, 293 Kan. at 205 . 2020Tully, 293 Kan. at 205 ; State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569-70 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). | 2 | 2020–2022 |
| State v. Chandler green | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Henderson green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| Doyle v. Ohio green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Jordan green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Dunn green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Logsdon green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Lindemuth green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Burnett green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Pribble green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Fisher green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Redick green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Walker green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Lovely green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Estelle v. McGuire green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Killings green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. McGinnes green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Mann green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Goodson green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Waller green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Dull green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.