115 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Federal Express Corp. v. Skeltongreen2 sentences2014The separation-of-powers doctrine is a “basic principle upon which our government is founded, and should not be violated or abridged.” Federal Express Corp. v. Skelton, 265 Ark. 187, 198 , 578 S.W.2d 1, 7 (1979). 2014The separation-of-powers doctrine is a “basic principle upon which our government is founded, and should not be violated or abridged.” Federal Express Corp. v. Skelton, 265 Ark. 187, 198 , 578 S.W.2d 1, 7 (1979). | 5 | 7 |
Chaffin v. Arkansas Game & Fish Commissiongreen2 sentences2007Game Fish Comm'n , 296 Ark. 431 , 757 S.W.2d 950 (1988) (Legislative Council's practice of giving "review and advice" on professional and consultant services contracts of executive agencies held unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine); King, supra , 336 Ark. at 417 (service of legislator on a legislatively created board held unconstitutional, in part because the power to "manage, control and supervise a considerable amount of state property, assets, and funds" is a power that is "reserved to the executive branch of state government," quoting Starnes v. Sadler , 237 Ark. 325 , 2007Game Fish Comm'n , 296 Ark. 431 , 757 S.W.2d 950 (1988) (Legislative Council's practice of giving "review and advice" on professional and consultant services contracts of executive agencies held unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine); King, supra , 336 Ark. at 417 (service of legislator on a legislatively created board held unconstitutional, in part because the power to "manage, control and supervise a considerable amount of state property, assets, and funds" is a power that is "reserved to the executive branch of state government," quoting Starnes v. Sadler , 237 Ark. 325 , | 3 | 8 |
State v. Murphygreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Vasquez-Aerreola, 327 Ark. 617 , 940 S.W.2d 451 (1997) (finding that the dismissal of a charge against the defendant, when made by the court over the objection of the State and not on a motion of either party, violated the separation-of-powers doctrine); State v. Murphy, 315 Ark. 68, 72 , 864 S.W.2d 842, 844 (1993) (holding that where the circuit court dismissed the habitual-offender charges against the defendant over the state’s objection, the court usurped the prosecutor’s constitutional duties and violated the separation-of-powers doctrine); State v. Hill, supra (holding 2011See, e.g., State v. Vasquez-Aerreola, 327 Ark. 617 , 940 S.W.2d 451 (1997) (finding that the dismissal of a charge against the defendant, when made by the court over the objection of the State and not on a motion of either party, violated the separation-of-powers doctrine); State v. Murphy, 315 Ark. 68, 72 , 864 S.W.2d 842, 844 (1993) (holding that where the circuit court dismissed the habitual-offender charges against the defendant over the state’s objection, the court usurped the prosecutor’s constitutional duties and violated the separation-of-powers doctrine); State v. Hill, supra (holding | 3 | 3 |
Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc.green2 sentences2016It states, “The Supreme Court shall prescribe the rules of pleading, practice and procedure for all courts; provided these rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as declared in this Constitution.” In Rockwell Automation, supra, this court cited this provision of the Arkansas Constitution as authority for striking down the nonparty-fault provision of the Civil Justice Reform Act as violative of the separation-of-powers clause found in article 4, section 2. 2 The Rockwell court acknowledged that the legislature has the power 2016It states, “The Supreme Court shall prescribe the rules of pleading, practice and procedure for all courts; provided these rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as declared in this Constitution.” In Rockwell Automation, supra, this court cited this provision of the Arkansas Constitution as authority for striking down the nonparty-fault provision of the Civil Justice Reform Act as violative of the separation-of-powers clause found in article 4, section 2. 2 The Rockwell court acknowledged that the legislature has the power | 2 | 6 |
MM v. Stategreen2 sentences2011This court has twice addressed the rape-shield statute in the context of the separation-of-powers doctrine in our state’s constitution and concluded that it “did not view the rape shield statute as having supplanted this court’s rule-making power and ability to control the courts.” M.M. v. State, 350 Ark. 328, 330 , 88 S.W.3d 406, 408 (2002) (citing Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415 , 17 S.W.3d 61 (2000)). 2011This court has twice addressed the rape-shield statute in the context of the separation-of-powers doctrine in our state’s constitution and concluded that it “did not view the rape shield statute as having supplanted this court’s rule-making power and ability to control the courts.” M.M. v. State, 350 Ark. 328, 330 , 88 S.W.3d 406, 408 (2002) (citing Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415 , 17 S.W.3d 61 (2000)). | 2 | 2 |
State Board of Workforce Education v. Kinggreen2 sentences2008See also, State Board of Workforce Education v. King , 336 Ark. 409 , 985 S.W.2d 731 (1999) (striking down service of legislators on certain executive boards, and citing Starnes v. Sadler , 237 Ark. 325 , 372 S.W.2d 585 (1963) for the proposition that the separation of powers doctrine is violated when legislators "are empowered to manage, control and supervise a considerable amount of state property, assets and funds . . ."). 2008See also, State Board of Workforce Education v. King , 336 Ark. 409 , 985 S.W.2d 731 (1999) (striking down service of legislators on certain executive boards, and citing Starnes v. Sadler , 237 Ark. 325 , 372 S.W.2d 585 (1963) for the proposition that the separation of powers doctrine is violated when legislators "are empowered to manage, control and supervise a considerable amount of state property, assets and funds . . ."). | 2 | 2 |
Oates v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2007The separation of powers doctrine establishes the basic principle that "[t]he legislature may not impose upon the judiciary or the executive the performance of acts or duties not properly belonging to those departments respectively." Oates, supra , 201 Ark. at 341 . 1995In Oates v. Rogers, 201 Ark. 335 , 133 S.W.2d 457 (1940), the issue before the court was whether an act delegating the power to select the county tax collector to circuit, chancery and county judges violated the separation of powers principle. | 1 | 5 |
Spradlin v. Arkansas Ethics Commissiongreen2 sentences2007It is thus unclear, for example, whether your measure would impact such actions as the appointment of special masters by the Supreme Court under Rule 6-5 of the "Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Arkansas." In addition, the Arkansas Supreme Court's power to appoint persons to offices outside the judicial branch (or, more properly, to exercise powers unrelated to the "administration of justice"), is already somewhat circumscribed by the separation of powers doctrine ( see, e.g., Spradlin v. Arkansas Ethics Commission , 314 Ark. 108 , 858 S.W.2d 684 (1993). 2007It is thus unclear, for example, whether your measure would impact such actions as the appointment of special masters by the Supreme Court under Rule 6-5 of the "Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Arkansas." In addition, the Arkansas Supreme Court's power to appoint persons to offices outside the judicial branch (or, more properly, to exercise powers unrelated to the "administration of justice"), is already somewhat circumscribed by the separation of powers doctrine ( see, e.g., Spradlin v. Arkansas Ethics Commission , 314 Ark. 108 , 858 S.W.2d 684 (1993). | 1 | 3 |
Ball v. Robertsgreen2 sentences1993Ball v. Roberts, 291 Ark. 84 , 722 S.W.2d 829 (1987), (invalidating a statute governing attorney qualifications necessary to represent an indigent in a criminal case on separation of powers grounds because the Supreme Court has the "exclusive power" to regulate the practice of law), and Op. Att'y Gen. 92-122 (copy enclosed) (opining that application of the statute at issue, A.C.A. § 17-1-101 , to the bar examination would similarly violate the separation of powers doctrine). 1993Ball v. Roberts, 291 Ark. 84 , 722 S.W.2d 829 (1987), (invalidating a statute governing attorney qualifications necessary to represent an indigent in a criminal case on separation of powers grounds because the Supreme Court has the "exclusive power" to regulate the practice of law), and Op. Att'y Gen. 92-122 (copy enclosed) (opining that application of the statute at issue, A.C.A. § 17-1-101 , to the bar examination would similarly violate the separation of powers doctrine). | 1 | 3 |
Sera v. Stategreen2 sentences2011This court has twice addressed the rape-shield statute in the context of the separation-of-powers doctrine in our state’s constitution and concluded that it “did not view the rape shield statute as having supplanted this court’s rule-making power and ability to control the courts.” M.M. v. State, 350 Ark. 328, 330 , 88 S.W.3d 406, 408 (2002) (citing Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415 , 17 S.W.3d 61 (2000)). 2011This court has twice addressed the rape-shield statute in the context of the separation-of-powers doctrine in our state’s constitution and concluded that it “did not view the rape shield statute as having supplanted this court’s rule-making power and ability to control the courts.” M.M. v. State, 350 Ark. 328, 330 , 88 S.W.3d 406, 408 (2002) (citing Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415 , 17 S.W.3d 61 (2000)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Vasquez-Aerreolagreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Vasquez-Aerreola, 327 Ark. 617 , 940 S.W.2d 451 (1997) (finding that the dismissal of a charge against the defendant, when made by the court over the objection of the State and not on a motion of either party, violated the separation-of-powers doctrine); State v. Murphy, 315 Ark. 68, 72 , 864 S.W.2d 842, 844 (1993) (holding that where the circuit court dismissed the habitual-offender charges against the defendant over the state’s objection, the court usurped the prosecutor’s constitutional duties and violated the separation-of-powers doctrine); State v. Hill, supra (holding 2011See, e.g., State v. Vasquez-Aerreola, 327 Ark. 617 , 940 S.W.2d 451 (1997) (finding that the dismissal of a charge against the defendant, when made by the court over the objection of the State and not on a motion of either party, violated the separation-of-powers doctrine); State v. Murphy, 315 Ark. 68, 72 , 864 S.W.2d 842, 844 (1993) (holding that where the circuit court dismissed the habitual-offender charges against the defendant over the state’s objection, the court usurped the prosecutor’s constitutional duties and violated the separation-of-powers doctrine); State v. Hill, supra (holding | 1 | 2 |
Starnes v. Sadlergreen2 sentences2008See also, State Board of Workforce Education v. King , 336 Ark. 409 , 985 S.W.2d 731 (1999) (striking down service of legislators on certain executive boards, and citing Starnes v. Sadler , 237 Ark. 325 , 372 S.W.2d 585 (1963) for the proposition that the separation of powers doctrine is violated when legislators "are empowered to manage, control and supervise a considerable amount of state property, assets and funds . . ."). 2008See also, State Board of Workforce Education v. King , 336 Ark. 409 , 985 S.W.2d 731 (1999) (striking down service of legislators on certain executive boards, and citing Starnes v. Sadler , 237 Ark. 325 , 372 S.W.2d 585 (1963) for the proposition that the separation of powers doctrine is violated when legislators "are empowered to manage, control and supervise a considerable amount of state property, assets and funds . . ."). | 1 | 2 |
State ex rel. Murphy v. Townsendgreen2 sentences1993It has been stated, however, that the separation of powers doctrine, found at Article 4, §§ 1 and 2, applies only to state officers and offices. 1 See Murphy v. Townsend, 72 Ark. 180 , 79 S.W. 782 (1904). 1993It has been stated, however, that the separation of powers doctrine, found at Article 4, §§ 1 and 2, applies only to state officers and offices. 1 See Murphy v. Townsend, 72 Ark. 180 , 79 S.W. 782 (1904). | 1 | 2 |
| cluster 471633green | 1 | 2 |
| Kachbalian v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Foots v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. D.S.green | 1 | 1 |
| E. C. Barton & Co. v. Nealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ark. St. Bd. of Elec. Comm'rs v. PCECgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ark. St. Bd. of Elec. Comm'rs v. PCECgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Circuit Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McInnish v. Rileygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arkansas Newspaper, Inc. v. Pattersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rose v. Arkansas State Plant Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wayman v. Southardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Magnus v. Carrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robert R. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith County Education Ass'n v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| At&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lincoln v. Arkansas Public Service Commission
neutral
2 sentences2006In Lincoln v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 313 Ark. 295 , 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993), we held that to allow the Public Service Commission to declare unconstitutional a statute that it was required to enforce would violate the separation of powers doctrine. 2006In Lincoln v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 313 Ark. 295 , 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993), we held that to allow the Public Service Commission to declare unconstitutional a statute that it was required to enforce would violate the separation of powers doctrine. | 6 | 2002–2006 |
Venhaus v. State ex rel. Lofton
green
2 sentences2000The Court declared the statute unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine, stating that "(u)nder our constitutional doctrine, the legislative branch is to fix salaries." 285 Ark. at 27 , citing Beaumont, Judge v. Adkisson, Judge, 267 Ark. 511 , 593 S.W.2d 11 (1980). 1988Lofton, 285 Ark. at 28 : The separation of powers doctrine necessarily implies that a court has the constitutional authority to order these acts done which are necessary and essential for the court to operate. | 4 | 1988–2015 |
State v. Sypult
green
2 sentences2002He maintains that the statute represents “an incursion into the right of the supreme court to prescribe rules of procedure under the doctrine enunciated in State v. Sypult, 304 Ark. 5 , 800 S.W.2d 402 (1990), and Casement v. State, 318 Ark. 225 , 884 S.W.2d 593 (1994).” In Sypult, supra, this court held that it would defer to the General Assembly when conflicts arise, only to the extent that the conflicting court rule’s primary purpose -and effectiveness are not compromised; otherwise, our rules remain supreme. 2002He maintains that the statute represents “an incursion into the right of the supreme court to prescribe rules of procedure under the doctrine enunciated in State v. Sypult, 304 Ark. 5 , 800 S.W.2d 402 (1990), and Casement v. State, 318 Ark. 225 , 884 S.W.2d 593 (1994).” In Sypult, supra, this court held that it would defer to the General Assembly when conflicts arise, only to the extent that the conflicting court rule’s primary purpose -and effectiveness are not compromised; otherwise, our rules remain supreme. | 4 | 1991–2002 |
Goodall v. Williams
green
2 sentences2008While recognizing that this court has previously held section 14-56-425, or its predecessor statute, constitutional, Fort Smith urges us to follow Goodall v. Williams, 271 Ark. 354 , 609 S.W.2d 25 (1980), and to find that de novo review of a BZA determination violates the separation-of-powers doctrine because it permits a circuit court jury to review a variance application without any deference to a BZA’s decision. 2008While recognizing that this court has previously held section 14-56-425, or its predecessor statute, constitutional, Fort Smith urges us to follow Goodall v. Williams, 271 Ark. 354 , 609 S.W.2d 25 (1980), and to find that de novo review of a BZA determination violates the separation-of-powers doctrine because it permits a circuit court jury to review a variance application without any deference to a BZA’s decision. | 3 | 2003–2008 |
Walker v. County of Washington
green
2 sentences2002The Arkansas Supreme Court addressed a separation of powers challenge brought pursuant to this provision in Walker v. Washington Co., 263 Ark. 317 , 564 S.W.2d 513 (1978). 2002The Arkansas Supreme Court addressed a separation of powers challenge brought pursuant to this provision in Walker v. Washington Co., 263 Ark. 317 , 564 S.W.2d 513 (1978). | 3 | 1997–2002 |
Cook v. Surplus Trading Company
neutral
2 sentences2002Cook v. Surplus Trading Co., 182 Ark. 420 , 31 S.W. 521 (1930). 1992Cook v. Surplus Trading Co., 182 Ark. 420 , 31 S.W. 521 (1930). | 3 | 1990–2002 |
Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021In Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc., 2016 Ark. 157 , 490 S.W.3d 298 , this court distinguished section 27-34-106(a) from the seat-belt statute at issue in that case, which was held to violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. 2021In Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc., 2016 Ark. 157 , 490 S.W.3d 298 , this court distinguished section 27-34-106(a) from the seat-belt statute at issue in that case, which was held to violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. | 2 | 2016–2021 |
Hobbs v. Jones
green
2 sentences2016Hobbs v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 293 , 412 S.W.3d 844 . . 2016Hobbs v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 293 , 412 S.W.3d 844 . . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing
green
2 sentences2014Edmisten raises an additional point on appeal in which he alleges that the structure of the Commission is unconstitutional because the “decisional independence” of the ALJs and the Commission has been infringed upon by both the executive branch of the State of Arkansas and private interests to the point of actual bias, as well as the appearance of bias, thus violating the separation-of-powers doctrine and his procedural and substantive due- 15 Cite as 2014 Ark. 89 process rights. 2014Edmisten raises an additional point on appeal in which he alleges that the structure of the Commission is unconstitutional because the “decisional independence” of the ALJs and the Commission has been infringed upon by both the executive branch of the State of Arkansas and private interests to the point of actual bias, as well as the appearance of bias, thus violating the separation-of-powers doctrine and his procedural and substantive due- 15 Cite as 2014 Ark. 89 process rights. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Smith v. Page
green
2 sentences2003In fact, this court recently discussed the importance of this constitutional requirement in Magnus v. Carr, 350 Ark. 388, 392 , 86 S.W.3d 867, 869 (2002) (citing Smith v. Page, 192 Ark. 342 , 91 S.W.2d 281 (1936)), and stated: The kind of government the people adopted contains three co-ordinate branches. 2002Article 5, section 11, of the Arkansas Constitution elaborates on the application of the separation of powers doctrine and plainly states that “[e]ach House shall appoint its own officers, and shall be sole judge of the qualifications, returns and elections of its own members.” Id. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Casement v. State
green
2 sentences2002He maintains that the statute represents “an incursion into the right of the supreme court to prescribe rules of procedure under the doctrine enunciated in State v. Sypult, 304 Ark. 5 , 800 S.W.2d 402 (1990), and Casement v. State, 318 Ark. 225 , 884 S.W.2d 593 (1994).” In Sypult, supra, this court held that it would defer to the General Assembly when conflicts arise, only to the extent that the conflicting court rule’s primary purpose -and effectiveness are not compromised; otherwise, our rules remain supreme. 2002He maintains that the statute represents “an incursion into the right of the supreme court to prescribe rules of procedure under the doctrine enunciated in State v. Sypult, 304 Ark. 5 , 800 S.W.2d 402 (1990), and Casement v. State, 318 Ark. 225 , 884 S.W.2d 593 (1994).” In Sypult, supra, this court held that it would defer to the General Assembly when conflicts arise, only to the extent that the conflicting court rule’s primary purpose -and effectiveness are not compromised; otherwise, our rules remain supreme. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Laman v. McCord
green
2 sentences2001As noted in Laman v. McCord, 245 Ark. 401 , 408 , 432 S.W.2d 753 (1968) (Fogleman, J., concurring): The doctrine of separation of powers applied at the state level is not usually applied to municipal corporations and has never been regarded as fully appropriate in the performance of municipal functions. 2001As noted in Laman v. McCord, 245 Ark. 401 , 408 , 432 S.W.2d 753 (1968) (Fogleman, J., concurring): The doctrine of separation of powers applied at the state level is not usually applied to municipal corporations and has never been regarded as fully appropriate in the performance of municipal functions. | 2 | 1996–2001 |
Beaumont v. Adkisson
green
2 sentences2000The Court declared the statute unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine, stating that "(u)nder our constitutional doctrine, the legislative branch is to fix salaries." 285 Ark. at 27 , citing Beaumont, Judge v. Adkisson, Judge, 267 Ark. 511 , 593 S.W.2d 11 (1980). 2000The Court declared the statute unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine, stating that "(u)nder our constitutional doctrine, the legislative branch is to fix salaries." 285 Ark. at 27 , citing Beaumont, Judge v. Adkisson, Judge, 267 Ark. 511 , 593 S.W.2d 11 (1980). | 2 | 1988–2000 |
Anderson v. Lamm
green
2 sentences2000The Arkansas Supreme Court recognized this principle in the case of Chaffin v. Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n, 296 Ark. 431 , 757 S.W.2d 950 (1988), wherein the court recognized the separation of powers doctrine, and then cited to a Colorado case ( Anderson v. Lamm, 195 Colo. 437 , 579 P.2d 620 (1978)), involving a requirement that an executive agency obtain "approval" by the legislative Joint Budget Committee before spending money which had been appropriated. 2000The Arkansas Supreme Court recognized this principle in the case of Chaffin v. Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n, 296 Ark. 431 , 757 S.W.2d 950 (1988), wherein the court recognized the separation of powers doctrine, and then cited to a Colorado case ( Anderson v. Lamm, 195 Colo. 437 , 579 P.2d 620 (1978)), involving a requirement that an executive agency obtain "approval" by the legislative Joint Budget Committee before spending money which had been appropriated. | 2 | 1989–2000 |
Owen v. State
green
2 sentences1999The opinion relied upon the case of Owen v. State, 263 Ark. 493 , 565 S.W.2d 607 (1978) which indicated that the service of a sitting legislator as a special prosecuting attorney (a judicial branch position), would violate the separation of powers doctrine. 1999The opinion relied upon the case of Owen v. State, 263 Ark. 493 , 565 S.W.2d 607 (1978) which indicated that the service of a sitting legislator as a special prosecuting attorney (a judicial branch position), would violate the separation of powers doctrine. | 2 | 1996–1999 |
Osborne v. State
green
2 sentences1997Osborne v. State, 237 Ark. 5 , 371 S.W.2d 518 (1963). 1997Osborne v. State, 237 Ark. 5 , 371 S.W.2d 518 (1963). | 2 | 1990–1997 |
| State v. Laury neutral | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Petition of United States of America for a Writ of Mandamus
green
2 sentences1991See also United States v. Edmonson, 792 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1037 (1987); State v. Laury, 397 So.2d 960 (Fla. App. 1981); Petition of United States, 306 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1962). 1990(Citations omitted.) See also Petition of United States, 306 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1962); State v. Laury, 397 So.2d 960 (Fla. App. 1981). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
| C.B. v. State green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Jonathan Rolfe v. State of Arkansas green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Brooks green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| I.K. v. State neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Kellar v. Fayetteville Police Department green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Bedell v. Williams green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Moore v. Moore green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Kelley v. Johnson green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bakalekos v. Furlow green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hooker v. Parkin green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Bakalekos v. Furlow green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hobbs v. McGehee green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Lowe v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Nelson v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Clayton v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Summerville v. Thrower green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Weidrick v. Arnold green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Hill neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Preston v. Stoops green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Solis v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Murphy v. Forsgren, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.