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.
16 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aragongreen2 sentences2018Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 4 1 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 ; see State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 2 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume correctness in the district court’s rulings or 3 decisions and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 4 {9} We note that in Husband’s brief in chief, his presentation of facts includes only 5 those favorable to his position, and excludes those that support the district court’s 6 contrary determination. 2018Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 4 1 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 ; see State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 2 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume correctness in the district court’s rulings or 3 decisions and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 4 {9} We note that in Husband’s brief in chief, his presentation of facts includes only 5 those favorable to his position, and excludes those that support the district court’s 6 contrary determination. | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Gordongreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Mendoza v. Mendoza, 1985-NMCA-088 , ¶ 20, 2 103 N.M. 327 , 706 P.2d 869 (“After the expiration of the time within which to appeal 3 a decree awarding a divorce, allocating responsibility for community debts, and 4 declaring the interests of the parties in the property acquired during marriage, the 5 court in the original proceeding loses jurisdiction to modify the decree except under 6 the provisions of Rule 60(b)[.]”); Gordon, 2011-NMCA-044, ¶ 17 (citing Mendoza 7 for the proposition that Rule 1-060(B) could be used to modify an MSA merged into 8 a final decree). 9 {6} Lastly, we d | 1 | 1 |
Mendoza v. Mendozagreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Mendoza v. Mendoza, 1985-NMCA-088 , ¶ 20, 2 103 N.M. 327 , 706 P.2d 869 (“After the expiration of the time within which to appeal 3 a decree awarding a divorce, allocating responsibility for community debts, and 4 declaring the interests of the parties in the property acquired during marriage, the 5 court in the original proceeding loses jurisdiction to modify the decree except under 6 the provisions of Rule 60(b)[.]”); Gordon, 2011-NMCA-044, ¶ 17 (citing Mendoza 7 for the proposition that Rule 1-060(B) could be used to modify an MSA merged into 8 a final decree). 9 {6} Lastly, we d 2015See, e.g., Mendoza v. Mendoza, 1985-NMCA-088 , ¶ 20, 2 103 N.M. 327 , 706 P.2d 869 (“After the expiration of the time within which to appeal 3 a decree awarding a divorce, allocating responsibility for community debts, and 4 declaring the interests of the parties in the property acquired during marriage, the 5 court in the original proceeding loses jurisdiction to modify the decree except under 6 the provisions of Rule 60(b)[.]”); Gordon, 2011-NMCA-044, ¶ 17 (citing Mendoza 7 for the proposition that Rule 1-060(B) could be used to modify an MSA merged into 8 a final decree). 9 {6} Lastly, we d | 1 | 1 |
Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizonagreen2 sentences2013See Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. 18 Co. of Ariz., 115 N.M. 622, 627 , 857 P.2d 22, 27 (1993) (“[C]ases are not authority 19 for propositions not considered.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 24 1 Nevertheless, because the district court ordered retroactive application of its spousal 2 support order to coincide with the date of Husband’s motion to modify spousal 3 support, Husband’s argument essentially amounts to a position that the court was 4 permitted to do what it did. 2013See Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. 18 Co. of Ariz., 115 N.M. 622, 627 , 857 P.2d 22, 27 (1993) (“[C]ases are not authority 19 for propositions not considered.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 24 1 Nevertheless, because the district court ordered retroactive application of its spousal 2 support order to coincide with the date of Husband’s motion to modify spousal 3 support, Husband’s argument essentially amounts to a position that the court was 4 permitted to do what it did. | 1 | 1 |
Dona Ana Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dofflemeyergreen1 sentence2013In sum, Husband argues that the district court erred in 13 securing Husband’s debt to Wife with a lien against his retirement account because, 14 pursuant to Section 42-10-2, his retirement account was exempt from Wife’s claim as 15 a creditor. 16 {10} Section 42-10-2 provides, in pertinent part, that “any interest in or proceeds 17 from a pension or retirement fund of every person supporting only himself is exempt 18 from receivers or trustees in bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings, executors 19 or administrators in probate, fines, attachment, execution[,] or foreclosure by a 6 1 judgm | 1 | 1 |
Jurado v. Juradogreen2 sentences2012We 7 address Husband’s arguments in turn. 8 In reviewing Husband’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view 9 the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and judgment entered below.” 10 Jurado v. Jurado, 119 N.M. 522, 526 , 892 P.2d 969, 973 (Ct. App. 1995). 2012We 7 address Husband’s arguments in turn. 8 In reviewing Husband’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view 9 the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and judgment entered below.” 10 Jurado v. Jurado, 119 N.M. 522, 526 , 892 P.2d 969, 973 (Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Garciagreen2 sentences2010See Garcia v. Garcia, 2010-NMCA-014, ¶ 27 , 147 N.M. 652 , 227 2 1 P.3d 621 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-002 , 147 N.M. 705 , 228 P.3d 2 489 . 3 In Muse I, this Court reversed in part and remanded the case for further 4 proceedings, with the following instructions. 5 We reverse the district court’s denial of Husband’s motion for an 6 accounting from Wife and remand for explicit determinations consistent 7 with this opinion. 2010See Garcia v. Garcia, 2010-NMCA-014, ¶ 27 , 147 N.M. 652 , 227 2 1 P.3d 621 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-002 , 147 N.M. 705 , 228 P.3d 2 489 . 3 In Muse I, this Court reversed in part and remanded the case for further 4 proceedings, with the following instructions. 5 We reverse the district court’s denial of Husband’s motion for an 6 accounting from Wife and remand for explicit determinations consistent 7 with this opinion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Henrygreen1 sentence2010See Garcia v. Garcia, 2010-NMCA-014, ¶ 27 , 147 N.M. 652 , 227 2 1 P.3d 621 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-002 , 147 N.M. 705 , 228 P.3d 2 489 . 3 In Muse I, this Court reversed in part and remanded the case for further 4 proceedings, with the following instructions. 5 We reverse the district court’s denial of Husband’s motion for an 6 accounting from Wife and remand for explicit determinations consistent 7 with this opinion. | 1 | 1 |
Grygorwicz v. Trujillogreen2 sentences2009See Grygorwicz 16 v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8 , 145 N.M. 650 , 203 P.3d 865 (explaining that, “if 17 a party makes a post-judgment motion directed at the final judgment pursuant to 18 Section 39-1-1, the time for filing an appeal does not begin to run until the district 3 1 court enters an express disposition on that motion”). 2009See Grygorwicz 16 v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8 , 145 N.M. 650 , 203 P.3d 865 (explaining that, “if 17 a party makes a post-judgment motion directed at the final judgment pursuant to 18 Section 39-1-1, the time for filing an appeal does not begin to run until the district 3 1 court enters an express disposition on that motion”). | 1 | 1 |
Zarges v. Zargesgreen2 sentences2009See NMSA 1978, § 40-4-20 (1993). 6 Section 40-4-20 provides that after a divorce, “either [party] may subsequently 7 institute and prosecute a suit for division and distribution or with reference to any 8 other matter pertaining thereto that could have been litigated in the original 9 proceeding for dissolution of marriage or separation.” 10 While the district court retains jurisdiction over a divorce judgment to modify 11 or enforce the judgment, Zarges v. Zarges, 79 N.M. 494, 494-96 , 445 P.2d 97 , 97-99 12 (1968), Husband’s motion is not a motion to modify or enforce the judgment. 2009See NMSA 1978, § 40-4-20 (1993). 6 Section 40-4-20 provides that after a divorce, “either [party] may subsequently 7 institute and prosecute a suit for division and distribution or with reference to any 8 other matter pertaining thereto that could have been litigated in the original 9 proceeding for dissolution of marriage or separation.” 10 While the district court retains jurisdiction over a divorce judgment to modify 11 or enforce the judgment, Zarges v. Zarges, 79 N.M. 494, 494-96 , 445 P.2d 97 , 97-99 12 (1968), Husband’s motion is not a motion to modify or enforce the judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Diversey Corp. v. Chem-Source Corp.green2 sentences2008See Diversey Corp., 1998-NMCA-112, ¶ 12 , 125 N.M. 748 , 965 P.2d 332 (stating that to preserve an error for appellate review the party must raise the alleged error clearly to the district court); see also Govich v. N. Am. 2008See Diversey Corp., 1998-NMCA-112, ¶ 12 , 125 N.M. 748 , 965 P.2d 332 (stating that to preserve an error for appellate review the party must raise the alleged error clearly to the district court); see also Govich v. N. Am. | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Singhgreen2 sentences2008Husband asserts that “[t]here is no indication in the record that the ... court was provided with or ever reviewed the evidence underlying the [s]peeial [m]aster’s report” and, therefore, “the court could not have determined that the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the [sjpecial [m]aster’s report were not ‘clearly erroneous.’ ” See Rule 1-053(E)(2) (stating that the court must accept a special master’s findings of fact unless the findings are “clearly erroneous”); Lopez v. Singh, 53 N.M. 245, 248 , 205 P.2d 492, 494 (1949) (indicating that “clearly erroneous” as used in 2008Husband asserts that “[t]here is no indication in the record that the ... court was provided with or ever reviewed the evidence underlying the [s]peeial [m]aster’s report” and, therefore, “the court could not have determined that the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the [sjpecial [m]aster’s report were not ‘clearly erroneous.’ ” See Rule 1-053(E)(2) (stating that the court must accept a special master’s findings of fact unless the findings are “clearly erroneous”); Lopez v. Singh, 53 N.M. 245, 248 , 205 P.2d 492, 494 (1949) (indicating that “clearly erroneous” as used in | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen2 sentences1995Smith v. Smith, 114 N.M. 276, 280 , 837 P.2d 869, 873 (Ct.App.1992). 1995Smith v. Smith, 114 N.M. 276, 280 , 837 P.2d 869, 873 (Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Carnes v. Meadorgreen1 sentence1990In Carnes v. Meador, 533 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Tex.Ct.App.1975), the Texas court stated, If a spouse disposes of community property in fraud of the other spouse’s rights, the aggrieved spouse has a right of recourse first against the property or estate of the disposing spouse; and, if that proves to be of no avail, then the aggrieved spouse may pursue the proceeds to the extent of her community interest into the hands of the party to whom the funds have been conveyed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
SUNWEST BK. OF ALBUQUERQUE v. Roderiguez
green
2 sentences2019Citing Springer Corp. v. Herrera, 1973-NMSC-057 , ¶ 12, 85 N.M. 201 , 510 P.2d 1072 , overruled on other grounds by Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque v. Rodriguez, 1989-NMSC-011 , ¶ 12, 108 N.M. 211 , 770 P.2d 533 , and Rodriguez v. Conant, 1987-NMSC-040 , ¶ 22, 105 N.M. 746 , 737 P.2d 527 , Husband argues that New Mexico case law “provide[s] that ‘claims for large sums of money should not be determined by default judgments if they can be reasonably be avoided.’ ” Beyond reciting this general proposition of law and referring to portions of the record establishing the value of some of the parties’ as 2019Citing Springer Corp. v. Herrera, 1973-NMSC-057 , ¶ 12, 85 N.M. 201 , 510 P.2d 1072 , overruled on other grounds by Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque v. Rodriguez, 1989-NMSC-011 , ¶ 12, 108 N.M. 211 , 770 P.2d 533 , and Rodriguez v. Conant, 1987-NMSC-040 , ¶ 22, 105 N.M. 746 , 737 P.2d 527 , Husband argues that New Mexico case law “provide[s] that ‘claims for large sums of money should not be determined by default judgments if they can be reasonably be avoided.’ ” Beyond reciting this general proposition of law and referring to portions of the record establishing the value of some of the parties’ as | 1 | 2019–2019 |
ITT Educational Services, Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Department
green
2 sentences2019Servs., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 1998-NMCA-078, ¶ 10 , 125 N.M. 244 , 959 P.2d 969 (explaining that this Court will not consider propositions that are unsupported by citation to authority). {22} Finally, we reject Husband’s claim that the “large” value of the parties’ assets itself somehow necessitates setting aside the default judgment. 2019Servs., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 1998-NMCA-078, ¶ 10 , 125 N.M. 244 , 959 P.2d 969 (explaining that this Court will not consider propositions that are unsupported by citation to authority). {22} Finally, we reject Husband’s claim that the “large” value of the parties’ assets itself somehow necessitates setting aside the default judgment. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rodriguez v. Conant
green
2 sentences2019Citing Springer Corp. v. Herrera, 1973-NMSC-057 , ¶ 12, 85 N.M. 201 , 510 P.2d 1072 , overruled on other grounds by Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque v. Rodriguez, 1989-NMSC-011 , ¶ 12, 108 N.M. 211 , 770 P.2d 533 , and Rodriguez v. Conant, 1987-NMSC-040 , ¶ 22, 105 N.M. 746 , 737 P.2d 527 , Husband argues that New Mexico case law “provide[s] that ‘claims for large sums of money should not be determined by default judgments if they can be reasonably be avoided.’ ” Beyond reciting this general proposition of law and referring to portions of the record establishing the value of some of the parties’ as 2019Citing Springer Corp. v. Herrera, 1973-NMSC-057 , ¶ 12, 85 N.M. 201 , 510 P.2d 1072 , overruled on other grounds by Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque v. Rodriguez, 1989-NMSC-011 , ¶ 12, 108 N.M. 211 , 770 P.2d 533 , and Rodriguez v. Conant, 1987-NMSC-040 , ¶ 22, 105 N.M. 746 , 737 P.2d 527 , Husband argues that New Mexico case law “provide[s] that ‘claims for large sums of money should not be determined by default judgments if they can be reasonably be avoided.’ ” Beyond reciting this general proposition of law and referring to portions of the record establishing the value of some of the parties’ as | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Springer Corporation v. Herrera
green
2 sentences2019Citing Springer Corp. v. Herrera, 1973-NMSC-057 , ¶ 12, 85 N.M. 201 , 510 P.2d 1072 , overruled on other grounds by Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque v. Rodriguez, 1989-NMSC-011 , ¶ 12, 108 N.M. 211 , 770 P.2d 533 , and Rodriguez v. Conant, 1987-NMSC-040 , ¶ 22, 105 N.M. 746 , 737 P.2d 527 , Husband argues that New Mexico case law “provide[s] that ‘claims for large sums of money should not be determined by default judgments if they can be reasonably be avoided.’ ” Beyond reciting this general proposition of law and referring to portions of the record establishing the value of some of the parties’ as 2019Citing Springer Corp. v. Herrera, 1973-NMSC-057 , ¶ 12, 85 N.M. 201 , 510 P.2d 1072 , overruled on other grounds by Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque v. Rodriguez, 1989-NMSC-011 , ¶ 12, 108 N.M. 211 , 770 P.2d 533 , and Rodriguez v. Conant, 1987-NMSC-040 , ¶ 22, 105 N.M. 746 , 737 P.2d 527 , Husband argues that New Mexico case law “provide[s] that ‘claims for large sums of money should not be determined by default judgments if they can be reasonably be avoided.’ ” Beyond reciting this general proposition of law and referring to portions of the record establishing the value of some of the parties’ as | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Weidler v. Big J Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018"In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and evidence to the contrary." Weidler v. Big J Enters ., 1998-NMCA-021 , ¶ 30, 124 N.M. 591 , 953 P.2d 1089 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {36} As we understand it, Husband's claim is three-fold. 2018"In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and evidence to the contrary." Weidler v. Big J Enters ., 1998-NMCA-021 , ¶ 30, 124 N.M. 591 , 953 P.2d 1089 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {36} As we understand it, Husband's claim is three-fold. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Farmers, Inc. v. Dal MacHine & Fabricating, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 4 1 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 ; see State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 2 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume correctness in the district court’s rulings or 3 decisions and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 4 {9} We note that in Husband’s brief in chief, his presentation of facts includes only 5 those favorable to his position, and excludes those that support the district court’s 6 contrary determination. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re Sloan
green
1 sentence2013In sum, Husband argues that the district court erred in 13 securing Husband’s debt to Wife with a lien against his retirement account because, 14 pursuant to Section 42-10-2, his retirement account was exempt from Wife’s claim as 15 a creditor. 16 {10} Section 42-10-2 provides, in pertinent part, that “any interest in or proceeds 17 from a pension or retirement fund of every person supporting only himself is exempt 18 from receivers or trustees in bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings, executors 19 or administrators in probate, fines, attachment, execution[,] or foreclosure by a 6 1 judgm | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Muse v. Muse
green
1 sentence2010We also reverse and remand, consistent with this 8 opinion, for explicit determinations in regard to whether Husband was 9 improperly denied access to information and documents underlying the 10 special master reports. 11 12 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 84 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance
green
2 sentences2009Co., 2007-NMSC-051, ¶ 15 , 142 18 N.M. 527 , 168 P.3d 99 ; see also Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA- 2 1 122, ¶ 6, ___ N.M. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 29,239, June 18, 2009) (viewing Redi-Mix 2 as holding that when a post-judgment motion that challenges the district court’s 3 determination of the parties’ rights is pending in the district court, the judgment or 4 order entered by the court remains non-final). 2009Co., 2007-NMSC-051, ¶ 15 , 142 18 N.M. 527 , 168 P.3d 99 ; see also Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA- 2 1 122, ¶ 6, ___ N.M. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 29,239, June 18, 2009) (viewing Redi-Mix 2 as holding that when a post-judgment motion that challenges the district court’s 3 determination of the parties’ rights is pending in the district court, the judgment or 4 order entered by the court remains non-final). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hennessy v. Duryea
green
2 sentences2009Instead, he 14 states that he is relying on the argument in his docketing statement. [MIO 1] “Our 15 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 16 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.” Hennessy 17 v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 . 2009Instead, he 14 states that he is relying on the argument in his docketing statement. [MIO 1] “Our 15 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 16 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.” Hennessy 17 v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ruggles v. Ruggles
green
2 sentences1995Wife's response to Husband's claim relies in part on this Court's decision in Ruggles v. Ruggles, 114 N.M. 63 , 834 P.2d 940 (Ct.App.1992) ( Ruggles I ), rev'd, 116 N.M. 52 , 860 P.2d 182 (1995). 1995Wife's response to Husband's claim relies in part on this Court's decision in Ruggles v. Ruggles, 114 N.M. 63 , 834 P.2d 940 (Ct.App.1992) ( Ruggles I ), rev'd, 116 N.M. 52 , 860 P.2d 182 (1995). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schweitzer v. Burch
green
2 sentences1995Ruggles I, in accord with our Supreme Court's decision in Schweitzer v. Burch, 103 N.M. 612 , 711 P.2d 889 (1985), held, inter alia, that unless the parties agree otherwise, the trial court in a divorce proceeding must apportion the community interest in a spouse's retirement plan on a "`pay as it comes in' basis." Ruggles I, 114 N.M. at 68 , 834 P.2d at 945 . 1995Ruggles I, in accord with our Supreme Court's decision in Schweitzer v. Burch, 103 N.M. 612 , 711 P.2d 889 (1985), held, inter alia, that unless the parties agree otherwise, the trial court in a divorce proceeding must apportion the community interest in a spouse's retirement plan on a "`pay as it comes in' basis." Ruggles I, 114 N.M. at 68 , 834 P.2d at 945 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ruggles v. Ruggles
green
2 sentences1995Wife's response to Husband's claim relies in part on this Court's decision in Ruggles v. Ruggles, 114 N.M. 63 , 834 P.2d 940 (Ct.App.1992) ( Ruggles I ), rev'd, 116 N.M. 52 , 860 P.2d 182 (1995). 1995Wife's response to Husband's claim relies in part on this Court's decision in Ruggles v. Ruggles, 114 N.M. 63 , 834 P.2d 940 (Ct.App.1992) ( Ruggles I ), rev'd, 116 N.M. 52 , 860 P.2d 182 (1995). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Homes by Marilynn v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1992In re Estate of McKim, 111 N.M. 517 , 807 P.2d 215 (1991); see also Gavin Maloof & Co. v. Southwest Distrib. 1992In re Estate of McKim, 111 N.M. 517 , 807 P.2d 215 (1991); see also Gavin Maloof & Co. v. Southwest Distrib. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.