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.
14 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cronicgreen2 sentences2016See also Commonwealth v. Steele , 599 Pa. 341 , 386, 961 A.2d 786 , 812 (2008) ("In [ Florida v.] Nixon , [ 543 U.S. 175 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [ United States v.] Cronic , [ 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel's failure is complete, i.e., where 'counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate.' "); Sage v. State , 905 So.2d 1039 , 1041 (Fla. App. 2005) ("[T]he defendant must show that counsel's concession strategy was 'unreasonable. 2016See also Commonwealth v. Steele , 599 Pa. 341 , 386, 961 A.2d 786 , 812 (2008) ("In [ Florida v.] Nixon , [ 543 U.S. 175 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [ United States v.] Cronic , [ 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel's failure is complete, i.e., where 'counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate.' "); Sage v. State , 905 So.2d 1039 , 1041 (Fla. App. 2005) ("[T]he defendant must show that counsel's concession strategy was 'unreasonable. | 3 | 3 |
Sage v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See also Commonwealth v. Steele , 599 Pa. 341 , 386, 961 A.2d 786 , 812 (2008) ("In [ Florida v.] Nixon , [ 543 U.S. 175 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [ United States v.] Cronic , [ 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel's failure is complete, i.e., where 'counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate.' "); Sage v. State , 905 So.2d 1039 , 1041 (Fla. App. 2005) ("[T]he defendant must show that counsel's concession strategy was 'unreasonable. 2015See also Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 386 , 961 A.2d 786, 812 (2008) (‘In [Florida v.] Nixon, [ 543 U.S. 175 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [United States v.] Cronic, [ 466 U.S. 648 (1984) and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel’s failure is complete, i.e., where “counsel has entirely failed to function as the client’s advocate.” ’); Sage v. State, 905 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla.App.2005) (‘[T]he defendant must show that counsel’s concession strategy was “unreasonable.” ’).” Lee v. State, 44 So.3d 1145, 1169-70 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Steelegreen2 sentences2016See also Commonwealth v. Steele , 599 Pa. 341 , 386, 961 A.2d 786 , 812 (2008) ("In [ Florida v.] Nixon , [ 543 U.S. 175 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [ United States v.] Cronic , [ 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel's failure is complete, i.e., where 'counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate.' "); Sage v. State , 905 So.2d 1039 , 1041 (Fla. App. 2005) ("[T]he defendant must show that counsel's concession strategy was 'unreasonable. 2016See also Commonwealth v. Steele , 599 Pa. 341 , 386, 961 A.2d 786 , 812 (2008) ("In [ Florida v.] Nixon , [ 543 U.S. 175 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [ United States v.] Cronic , [ 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel's failure is complete, i.e., where 'counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate.' "); Sage v. State , 905 So.2d 1039 , 1041 (Fla. App. 2005) ("[T]he defendant must show that counsel's concession strategy was 'unreasonable. | 3 | 3 |
Wayne Carl Coleman v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondentgreen2 sentences2014Generally, the presumed-prejudice principle is “rarely applicable” and is “reserved for extreme situations.” Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487, 1537 (11th Cir.1985). 2000The presumed prejudice principle is `rare[ly]' applicable, and is reserved for an `extreme situation.'" Coleman v. Kemp , 778 F.2d 1487 , 1490 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). *Page 997 The burden is on a defendant seeking a change of venue to show, to the reasonable satisfaction of the court, that he or she cannot receive a fair and impartial trial in the county of original venue. | 2 | 4 |
Florida v. Nixongreen2 sentences2016See also Commonwealth v. Steele , 599 Pa. 341 , 386, 961 A.2d 786 , 812 (2008) ("In [ Florida v.] Nixon , [ 543 U.S. 175 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [ United States v.] Cronic , [ 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel's failure is complete, i.e., where 'counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate.' "); Sage v. State , 905 So.2d 1039 , 1041 (Fla. App. 2005) ("[T]he defendant must show that counsel's concession strategy was 'unreasonable. 2016See also Commonwealth v. Steele , 599 Pa. 341 , 386, 961 A.2d 786 , 812 (2008) ("In [ Florida v.] Nixon , [ 543 U.S. 175 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [ United States v.] Cronic , [ 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel's failure is complete, i.e., where 'counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate.' "); Sage v. State , 905 So.2d 1039 , 1041 (Fla. App. 2005) ("[T]he defendant must show that counsel's concession strategy was 'unreasonable. | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Jones v. State, 43 So.3d 1258 (Ala. Crim.App.2007). 2010See, e.g., Jones v. State, 43 So.3d 1258 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). | 2 | 2 |
Hunt v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Cir.1983).’ “Hunt v. State, 642 So.2d 999, 1042-43 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 642 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1994).” Here, Blackmon argued that, based on the pretrial publicity and the alleged community saturation, the presumed-prejudice standard applied in this case. 2006Cir.1983).' " Hunt v. State, 642 So.2d 999, 1042-43 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 642 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1994)." Here, Blackmon argued that, based on the pretrial publicity and the alleged community saturation, the presumed-prejudice standard applied in this case. | 2 | 2 |
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See also Commonwealth v. Steele , 599 Pa. 341 , 386, 961 A.2d 786 , 812 (2008) ("In [ Florida v.] Nixon , [ 543 U.S. 175 , 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [ United States v.] Cronic , [ 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel's failure is complete, i.e., where 'counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate.' "); Sage v. State , 905 So.2d 1039 , 1041 (Fla. App. 2005) ("[T]he defendant must show that counsel's concession strategy was 'unreasonable. 2015See also Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 386 , 961 A.2d 786, 812 (2008) (‘In [Florida v.] Nixon, [ 543 U.S. 175 (2004),] the High Court reiterated that [United States v.] Cronic, [ 466 U.S. 648 (1984) and the presumed prejudice standard] is limited to situations where counsel’s failure is complete, i.e., where “counsel has entirely failed to function as the client’s advocate.” ’); Sage v. State, 905 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla.App.2005) (‘[T]he defendant must show that counsel’s concession strategy was “unreasonable.” ’).” Lee v. State, 44 So.3d 1145, 1169-70 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). | 1 | 2 |
Patterson v. Colorado Ex Rel. Attorney General of Colo.green1 sentence2013Attorney General of Colo., 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016Specifically, he argues that the concession by counsel was sufficient, in itself, to trigger the presumed-prejudice standard of review under *1163 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2016Specifically, he argues that the concession by counsel was sufficient, in itself, to trigger the presumed-prejudice standard of review under *1163 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Walker v. State
green
1 sentence2016Walker , 194 So.3d at 282 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Skilling v. United States
green
2 sentences2013Recently, the United States Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 , 130 S.Ct. 2896 , 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), revisited the proof necessary to satisfy the presumed-prejudice standard in regard to a motion for a change of venue and stated: “ ‘The theory of our [trial] system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.’ Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. 2013Recently, the United States Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 , 130 S.Ct. 2896 , 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), revisited the proof necessary to satisfy the presumed-prejudice standard in regard to a motion for a change of venue and stated: “ ‘The theory of our [trial] system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.’ Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ex Parte Hunt
green
2 sentences2006Cir.1983).’ “Hunt v. State, 642 So.2d 999, 1042-43 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 642 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1994).” Here, Blackmon argued that, based on the pretrial publicity and the alleged community saturation, the presumed-prejudice standard applied in this case. 2006Cir.1983).' " Hunt v. State, 642 So.2d 999, 1042-43 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 642 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1994)." Here, Blackmon argued that, based on the pretrial publicity and the alleged community saturation, the presumed-prejudice standard applied in this case. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
McLaren v. State
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Oryang v. State
green
2 sentences2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would 2005We do not find that the pretrial publicity in this case so "pervasively saturated" the community as to render the court proceedings nothing more than a "hollow formality." Oryang , 642 So.2d at 983 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Perkins v. State
green
2 sentences2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would 2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ex Parte Perkins
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Allen v. United States
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Perkins v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Gennaro J. Angiulo, Donato F. Angiulo, Samuel S. Granito, Francesco J. Angiulo and Michele A. Angiulo
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Holladay v. State
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ex Parte Holladay
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Thompson v. State
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ex Parte Perkins
green
1 sentence2005To warrant a change of venue under the presumed prejudice standard, "it must be *Page 877 shown that the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case was inherently prejudicial," Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), aff'd, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989); "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature." Perkins v. State , 808 So.2d 1041 , 1069 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala. 2001), judgment vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), on remand to 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002). "`"Newspaper articles alone would | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Arturo De La Vega, Raimundo Betancourt, Ricardo Aleman, Mario Carballo and Osvaldo Coello
green
1 sentence1996This standard is reserved for extreme situations where pretrial publicity renders virtually impossible a fair trial by an impartial jury drawn from the community." United States v. De La Vega , 913 F.2d 861 , 865 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, Carballo v. *Page 978 United States , 500 U.S. 916 , 111 S.Ct. 2011 , 114 L.Ed.2d 99 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Cannistraro v. United States
green
1 sentence1996This standard is reserved for extreme situations where pretrial publicity renders virtually impossible a fair trial by an impartial jury drawn from the community." United States v. De La Vega , 913 F.2d 861 , 865 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, Carballo v. *Page 978 United States , 500 U.S. 916 , 111 S.Ct. 2011 , 114 L.Ed.2d 99 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
SMS Data Products Group, Inc. v. United States
green
1 sentence1996This standard is reserved for extreme situations where pretrial publicity renders virtually impossible a fair trial by an impartial jury drawn from the community." United States v. De La Vega , 913 F.2d 861 , 865 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, Carballo v. *Page 978 United States , 500 U.S. 916 , 111 S.Ct. 2011 , 114 L.Ed.2d 99 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Roberson
green
1 sentence1996This standard is reserved for extreme situations where pretrial publicity renders virtually impossible a fair trial by an impartial jury drawn from the community." United States v. De La Vega , 913 F.2d 861 , 865 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, Carballo v. *Page 978 United States , 500 U.S. 916 , 111 S.Ct. 2011 , 114 L.Ed.2d 99 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Rideau v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1995Hunt v. State , 642 So.2d at 1042-43. " 'At the outset, we emphasize the fact that the presumptive prejudice standard recognized in Rideau [ v. Louisiana , 373 U.S. 723 , 83 S.Ct. 1417 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963)] is only "rarely" applicable. 1995Hunt v. State , 642 So.2d at 1042-43. " 'At the outset, we emphasize the fact that the presumptive prejudice standard recognized in Rideau [ v. Louisiana , 373 U.S. 723 , 83 S.Ct. 1417 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963)] is only "rarely" applicable. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.