15 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1910–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gonzales v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019“Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant’s personal waiver are the rights ‘to plead guilty, waive a jury ... or take an appeal.”’ Commonwealth v. Simmons, 394 S.W.3d 903, 912 (Ky. 2013) (quoting Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242, 251 (2008)). 2013Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant’s personal waiver are the rights “to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.” Gonzalez, 553 U.S. at 251 , 128 S.Ct. 1765 (quoting from Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 187 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004); citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Newtongreen1 sentence2025We then expressed our agreement with the First Circuit Court of Appeals, that “[t]he protection embodied in the Double Jeopardy Clause is a personal defense that may be waived or foreclosed by a defendant's voluntary actions[.]” Id. (citing United States v. Newton, 327 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023Moreover, even though the Kentucky Constitution guarantees an individual’s “absolute procedural due process right to be prosecuted by indictment[,]” this “is a personal privilege that may be waived.” Malone v. -8- Commonwealth, 30 S.W.3d 180, 183 (Ky. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Simmonsgreen1 sentence2019“Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant’s personal waiver are the rights ‘to plead guilty, waive a jury ... or take an appeal.”’ Commonwealth v. Simmons, 394 S.W.3d 903, 912 (Ky. 2013) (quoting Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242, 251 (2008)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hewittgreen2 sentences2013State v. Stegall, 124 Wash.2d 719 , 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (holding that the record must demonstrate either the defendant’s personal expression of intent or his informed acquiescence in counsel’s stipulation); State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152, 155 (N.D.1987) (“Silently proceeding with trial before a six-person jury is not an express and affirmative waiver of one’s constitutional right to a jury of twelve.”); State v. Hewitt, 128 N.H. 557 , 517 A.2d 820, 828 (1986) (“A personal waiver by the defendant, indicating his understanding of the right to a full jury, is required to effectuate the constitutio 2013State v. Stegall, 124 Wash.2d 719 , 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (holding that the record must demonstrate either the defendant’s personal expression of intent or his informed acquiescence in counsel’s stipulation); State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152, 155 (N.D.1987) (“Silently proceeding with trial before a six-person jury is not an express and affirmative waiver of one’s constitutional right to a jury of twelve.”); State v. Hewitt, 128 N.H. 557 , 517 A.2d 820, 828 (1986) (“A personal waiver by the defendant, indicating his understanding of the right to a full jury, is required to effectuate the constitutio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Traugottgreen2 sentences2013App.2d 862 , 32 P.3d 1226 (2001) (citing State v. Hood, 242 Kan. 115 , 744 P.2d 816 (1987), in support of holding that waiver of twelve-person jury must be personally addressed to the defendant); People v. Traugott, 184 Cal.App.4th 492 , 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 72 (2010) (“Like the waiver of the right to a jury, the consent to a jury of fewer than 12 persons must be expressed by the defendant in open court.”)- See generally V. 2013App.2d 862 , 32 P.3d 1226 (2001) (citing State v. Hood, 242 Kan. 115 , 744 P.2d 816 (1987), in support of holding that waiver of twelve-person jury must be personally addressed to the defendant); People v. Traugott, 184 Cal.App.4th 492 , 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 72 (2010) (“Like the waiver of the right to a jury, the consent to a jury of fewer than 12 persons must be expressed by the defendant in open court.”)- See generally V. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2013State v. Stegall, 124 Wash.2d 719 , 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (holding that the record must demonstrate either the defendant’s personal expression of intent or his informed acquiescence in counsel’s stipulation); State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152, 155 (N.D.1987) (“Silently proceeding with trial before a six-person jury is not an express and affirmative waiver of one’s constitutional right to a jury of twelve.”); State v. Hewitt, 128 N.H. 557 , 517 A.2d 820, 828 (1986) (“A personal waiver by the defendant, indicating his understanding of the right to a full jury, is required to effectuate the constitutio | 1 | 1 |
E.M. Bailey Distributing Co. v. Conagra, Inc.green1 sentence2013Bailey Distributing Co., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 676 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Ky.1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hegggreen1 sentence2013State v. Stegall, 124 Wash.2d 719 , 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (holding that the record must demonstrate either the defendant’s personal expression of intent or his informed acquiescence in counsel’s stipulation); State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152, 155 (N.D.1987) (“Silently proceeding with trial before a six-person jury is not an express and affirmative waiver of one’s constitutional right to a jury of twelve.”); State v. Hewitt, 128 N.H. 557 , 517 A.2d 820, 828 (1986) (“A personal waiver by the defendant, indicating his understanding of the right to a full jury, is required to effectuate the constitutio | 1 | 1 |
State v. McGeegreen1 sentence2013State v. Stegall, 124 Wash.2d 719 , 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (holding that the record must demonstrate either the defendant’s personal expression of intent or his informed acquiescence in counsel’s stipulation); State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152, 155 (N.D.1987) (“Silently proceeding with trial before a six-person jury is not an express and affirmative waiver of one’s constitutional right to a jury of twelve.”); State v. Hewitt, 128 N.H. 557 , 517 A.2d 820, 828 (1986) (“A personal waiver by the defendant, indicating his understanding of the right to a full jury, is required to effectuate the constitutio | 1 | 1 |
Parson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2008This argument is without merit, as Appellant waived this constitutional right. “[A] criminal defendant may waive the constitutional right to confrontation.” Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775, 783 (Ky.2004). “[N]o doubt the privilege (of personally confronting witnesses) may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342-43 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 5 Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the trial court was not obliged to ob 2008This argument is without merit, as Appellant waived this constitutional right. “[A] criminal defendant may waive the constitutional right to confrontation.” Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775, 783 (Ky.2004). “[N]o doubt the privilege (of personally confronting witnesses) may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342-43 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 5 Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the trial court was not obliged to ob | 1 | 1 |
John Palfy, Jr. v. Harold J. Cardwell, Wardengreen1 sentence2008See also Palfy v. Cardwell, 448 F.2d 328, 332 (6th Cir.1971) (stipulations containing information which established defendant’s guilt were properly admitted because defendant “knowingly and intelligently waived his right of confrontation”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Juan M. Gordon, (Two Cases)green2 sentences2001See also United States v. Gordon, supra note 14 at 125 ("[I]t is clear that rather than permitting defense counsel to waive Gordon's right to presence, the court should have held an on-the-record hearing to advise Gordon of his right to be present at voir dire and obtained a personal waiver in open court."). [16] United States v. Gordon, supra note 14 at 126. [17] Id. at 125 . [18] While the Commonwealth argues we should provide an exception for cases in which counsel waives the defendant's presence out of concerns for the defendant's physical well-being and where the defendant is physically u 2001See also United States v. Gordon, supra note 14 at 125 ("[I]t is clear that rather than permitting defense counsel to waive Gordon's right to presence, the court should have held an on-the-record hearing to advise Gordon of his right to be present at voir dire and obtained a personal waiver in open court."). [16] United States v. Gordon, supra note 14 at 126. [17] Id. at 125 . [18] While the Commonwealth argues we should provide an exception for cases in which counsel waives the defendant's presence out of concerns for the defendant's physical well-being and where the defendant is physically u | 1 | 1 |
Wolfenbarger v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2001In cases where counsel alleges that the defendant is physically unable to attend the hearing, trial courts should convene at a location convenient to the defendant and within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction, see Wolfenbarger v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 936 S.W.2d 770, 773 (1996), for the purpose of determining, on the record, whether the defendant wishes to waive his right to appear. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rock v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences2010Davis v. Alaska, supra. Indeed, “an accused’s right to present his own version of events in his own words,” the United States Supreme Court has explained, is “[e]ven more fundamental to a personal defense than the right of self-representation.” Rock, 483 U.S. at 52 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 . 2010Davis v. Alaska, supra. Indeed, “an accused’s right to present his own version of events in his own words,” the United States Supreme Court has explained, is “[e]ven more fundamental to a personal defense than the right of self-representation.” Rock, 483 U.S. at 52 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 . | 2 | 2004–2010 |
Couch v. Maricle
green
1 sentence2025We then expressed our agreement with the First Circuit Court of Appeals, that “[t]he protection embodied in the Double Jeopardy Clause is a personal defense that may be waived or foreclosed by a defendant's voluntary actions[.]” Id. (citing United States v. Newton, 327 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2003)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hammond v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2019“Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant’s personal waiver are the rights to plead guilty, waive a jury ... or take an appeal.” Id. (citations omitted). 2 On appeal, Rowland has not raised a nonwaivable issue such as subject matter jurisdiction. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Florida v. Nixon
green
2 sentences2013Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant’s personal waiver are the rights “to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.” Gonzalez, 553 U.S. at 251 , 128 S.Ct. 1765 (quoting from Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 187 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004); citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2013Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant’s personal waiver are the rights “to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.” Gonzalez, 553 U.S. at 251 , 128 S.Ct. 1765 (quoting from Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 187 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004); citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Hood
green
2 sentences2013App.2d 862 , 32 P.3d 1226 (2001) (citing State v. Hood, 242 Kan. 115 , 744 P.2d 816 (1987), in support of holding that waiver of twelve-person jury must be personally addressed to the defendant); People v. Traugott, 184 Cal.App.4th 492 , 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 72 (2010) (“Like the waiver of the right to a jury, the consent to a jury of fewer than 12 persons must be expressed by the defendant in open court.”)- See generally V. 2013App.2d 862 , 32 P.3d 1226 (2001) (citing State v. Hood, 242 Kan. 115 , 744 P.2d 816 (1987), in support of holding that waiver of twelve-person jury must be personally addressed to the defendant); People v. Traugott, 184 Cal.App.4th 492 , 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 72 (2010) (“Like the waiver of the right to a jury, the consent to a jury of fewer than 12 persons must be expressed by the defendant in open court.”)- See generally V. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Simpson
green
2 sentences2013State v. Stegall, 124 Wash.2d 719 , 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (holding that the record must demonstrate either the defendant’s personal expression of intent or his informed acquiescence in counsel’s stipulation); State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152, 155 (N.D.1987) (“Silently proceeding with trial before a six-person jury is not an express and affirmative waiver of one’s constitutional right to a jury of twelve.”); State v. Hewitt, 128 N.H. 557 , 517 A.2d 820, 828 (1986) (“A personal waiver by the defendant, indicating his understanding of the right to a full jury, is required to effectuate the constitutio 2013App.2d 862 , 32 P.3d 1226 (2001) (citing State v. Hood, 242 Kan. 115 , 744 P.2d 816 (1987), in support of holding that waiver of twelve-person jury must be personally addressed to the defendant); People v. Traugott, 184 Cal.App.4th 492 , 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 72 (2010) (“Like the waiver of the right to a jury, the consent to a jury of fewer than 12 persons must be expressed by the defendant in open court.”)- See generally V. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Stegall
green
2 sentences2013State v. Stegall, 124 Wash.2d 719 , 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (holding that the record must demonstrate either the defendant’s personal expression of intent or his informed acquiescence in counsel’s stipulation); State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152, 155 (N.D.1987) (“Silently proceeding with trial before a six-person jury is not an express and affirmative waiver of one’s constitutional right to a jury of twelve.”); State v. Hewitt, 128 N.H. 557 , 517 A.2d 820, 828 (1986) (“A personal waiver by the defendant, indicating his understanding of the right to a full jury, is required to effectuate the constitutio 2013State v. Stegall, 124 Wash.2d 719 , 881 P.2d 979 (1994) (holding that the record must demonstrate either the defendant’s personal expression of intent or his informed acquiescence in counsel’s stipulation); State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152, 155 (N.D.1987) (“Silently proceeding with trial before a six-person jury is not an express and affirmative waiver of one’s constitutional right to a jury of twelve.”); State v. Hewitt, 128 N.H. 557 , 517 A.2d 820, 828 (1986) (“A personal waiver by the defendant, indicating his understanding of the right to a full jury, is required to effectuate the constitutio | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2010The Supreme Court has recognized, moreover, that “a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination” is “the exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 678-79 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2010The Supreme Court has recognized, moreover, that “a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination” is “the exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 678-79 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Snyder v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2008This argument is without merit, as Appellant waived this constitutional right. “[A] criminal defendant may waive the constitutional right to confrontation.” Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775, 783 (Ky.2004). “[N]o doubt the privilege (of personally confronting witnesses) may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342-43 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 5 Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the trial court was not obliged to ob 2008This argument is without merit, as Appellant waived this constitutional right. “[A] criminal defendant may waive the constitutional right to confrontation.” Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775, 783 (Ky.2004). “[N]o doubt the privilege (of personally confronting witnesses) may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342-43 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 5 Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the trial court was not obliged to ob | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gall v. Scroggy
green
2 sentences2008He also cited KRS 406.051 as conferring jurisdiction, which specifically references children “born out of wedlock.” “It is axiomatic that in such circumstances, every well-pleaded allegation of the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made.” Gall v. Scroggy, 725 S.W.2d 867 (Ky.App.1987). 2008He also cited KRS 406.051 as conferring jurisdiction, which specifically references children "born out of wedlock." "It is axiomatic that in such circumstances, every well-pleaded allegation of the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made." Gall v. Scroggy, 725 S.W.2d 867 (Ky.App.1987). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Illinois v. Allen
green
2 sentences2008This argument is without merit, as Appellant waived this constitutional right. “[A] criminal defendant may waive the constitutional right to confrontation.” Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775, 783 (Ky.2004). “[N]o doubt the privilege (of personally confronting witnesses) may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342-43 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 5 Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the trial court was not obliged to ob 2008This argument is without merit, as Appellant waived this constitutional right. “[A] criminal defendant may waive the constitutional right to confrontation.” Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775, 783 (Ky.2004). “[N]o doubt the privilege (of personally confronting witnesses) may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342-43 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 5 Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the trial court was not obliged to ob | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Griffith green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Bradley green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| De Mello v. Langlois green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bagley v. Rhay
green
1 sentence2000People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619 , 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); State v. Griffith, 14 N.J.Super. 77 , 81 A.2d 382 (1951); State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52 , 20 S.E. 798 (1895); State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 (1956); Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 , 32 S.E.2d 142 (1944); Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150 , 180 A.2d 608 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 879 , 83 S.Ct. 151 , 9 L.Ed.2d 116 (1962). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sawyer v. United States
green
1 sentence2000People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619 , 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); State v. Griffith, 14 N.J.Super. 77 , 81 A.2d 382 (1951); State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52 , 20 S.E. 798 (1895); State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 (1956); Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 , 32 S.E.2d 142 (1944); Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150 , 180 A.2d 608 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 879 , 83 S.Ct. 151 , 9 L.Ed.2d 116 (1962). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Simmons green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Faile
green
2 sentences2000People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619 , 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); State v. Griffith, 14 N.J.Super. 77 , 81 A.2d 382 (1951); State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52 , 20 S.E. 798 (1895); State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 (1956); Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 , 32 S.E.2d 142 (1944); Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150 , 180 A.2d 608 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 879 , 83 S.Ct. 151 , 9 L.Ed.2d 116 (1962). 2000People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619 , 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); State v. Griffith, 14 N.J.Super. 77 , 81 A.2d 382 (1951); State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52 , 20 S.E. 798 (1895); State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 (1956); Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 , 32 S.E.2d 142 (1944); Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150 , 180 A.2d 608 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 879 , 83 S.Ct. 151 , 9 L.Ed.2d 116 (1962). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Tuttle v. State
green
2 sentences2000People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619 , 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); State v. Griffith, 14 N.J.Super. 77 , 81 A.2d 382 (1951); State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52 , 20 S.E. 798 (1895); State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 (1956); Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 , 32 S.E.2d 142 (1944); Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150 , 180 A.2d 608 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 879 , 83 S.Ct. 151 , 9 L.Ed.2d 116 (1962). 2000People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619 , 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); State v. Griffith, 14 N.J.Super. 77 , 81 A.2d 382 (1951); State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52 , 20 S.E. 798 (1895); State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 (1956); Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 , 32 S.E.2d 142 (1944); Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150 , 180 A.2d 608 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 879 , 83 S.Ct. 151 , 9 L.Ed.2d 116 (1962). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hanson v. Smyth
green
2 sentences2000People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619 , 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); State v. Griffith, 14 N.J.Super. 77 , 81 A.2d 382 (1951); State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52 , 20 S.E. 798 (1895); State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 (1956); Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 , 32 S.E.2d 142 (1944); Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150 , 180 A.2d 608 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 879 , 83 S.Ct. 151 , 9 L.Ed.2d 116 (1962). 2000People v. Bradley, 7 Ill.2d 619 , 131 N.E.2d 538 (1956); State v. Griffith, 14 N.J.Super. 77 , 81 A.2d 382 (1951); State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52 , 20 S.E. 798 (1895); State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 (1956); Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 , 32 S.E.2d 142 (1944); Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150 , 180 A.2d 608 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 879 , 83 S.Ct. 151 , 9 L.Ed.2d 116 (1962). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Mannin v. Adkins neutral | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| State v. . Mitchell green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
| Bains v. Globe Bank & Trust Co. neutral | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.