95 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2024 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vanmeter v. Stategreen2 sentences2017App. 2009); Vanmeter v. State, 165 S.W.3d 68, 74 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d); but see Curry v. State, 228 S.W.3d 292, 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. ref’d) (disagreeing with Vanmeter, finding Confrontation Clause applies in a pretrial suppression hearing). 2015App. 2009) (coming close to resolving the issue—and arguably resolving the issue by implication against appellant—but ultimately reversing the judgment of the court of appeals under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 28.01 section 1(6) and affirming the judgment of the trial court). 3 Compare Vanmeter v. State, 165 S.W.3d 68 , 74–75 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that the right of confrontation is a trial right, not a pretrial right, and therefore does not apply at a pretrial suppression hearing), and Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref' | 6 | 8 |
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Our research indicates that neither our Court1 nor the court of criminal appeals2 has directly decided whether the Confrontation Clause applies at a pretrial suppression hearing, and there appears to be a split of authority among the Texas intermediate courts on the issue.3 While we acknowledge the disagreement among the Texas intermediate courts, we decline appellant’s invitation to decide the 1 See Morales v. State, 222 S.W.3d 134, 141 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, no pet.) (finding no violation of the right to confrontation where appellant was given the opportunity to submit written inter 2010Ford v. State, 268 S.W.3d 620, 621 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008), overruled on other grounds, 305 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (“The prosecutor obviously understood appellant’s objection because she responded appropriately: Hearsay is admissible in a pretrial suppression hearing; the Confrontation Clause does not apply to a pre-trial suppression hearing.”). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2009Defendant’s unsworn statement consistent with what is allowed in art. 28.01, § 1(6)); Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (suppression hearing began with the State stipulating that the case involved a warrantless arrest); State v. Miller, 116 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, no pet.) (The plain language of article 28.01, § 1(6), "unambiguously gives a trial court the discretion to determine the format of a pretrial suppression hearing”; finding nothing in prior cases "to suggest that the court of criminal appeals intended to deny trial courts the discretion to require 2009Defendant's unsworn statement consistent with what is allowed in art. 28.01, § 1(6)); Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (suppression hearing began with the State stipulating that the case involved a warrantless arrest); State v. Miller, 116 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, no pet.) (The plain language of article 28.01, § 1(6), "unambiguously gives a trial court the discretion to determine the format of a pretrial suppression hearing"; finding nothing in prior cases "to suggest that the court of criminal appeals intended to deny trial courts the discretion to require | 5 | 5 |
McDole v. Stategreen2 sentences1996McDole v. State, 579 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Saenz v. State, 670 S.W.2d 667 , 671 n. 3 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref'd); see also, Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989); Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). 1995McDole v. State, 579 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Saenz v. State, 670 S.W.2d 667 , 671 n. 3 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref’d); see also Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). 2 . | 4 | 5 |
Gutierrez v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680, 687 (Tex. Crim. 2019See Gutierrez, 221 S.W.3d at 687 . | 4 | 4 |
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Webb v. State , 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n.13 (Tex. Crim. 2009Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); see also Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) ("it would be unreasonable to ignore trial evidence in our review of the court's suppression decision only to be confronted by the evidence in our consideration of whether the error was harmless”). | 2 | 5 |
Hardesty v. Stategreen2 sentences1996McDole v. State, 579 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Saenz v. State, 670 S.W.2d 667 , 671 n. 3 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref'd); see also, Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989); Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). 1995McDole v. State, 579 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Saenz v. State, 670 S.W.2d 667 , 671 n. 3 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref’d); see also Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). 2 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Cullengreen2 sentences2018The trial court is, “in the best position to judge the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses at a pretrial suppression hearing.” Cullen, 195 S.W. 3d at 698 . 2012NOTES [1] Black v. State, No. 10-08-00290-CR, 2010 WL 2953129 , at *2 (Tex.App.-Waco July 28, 2010) (opinion on original submission) (not designated for publication) (hereinafter, Black I ); Black v. State, No. 10-08-00290-CR, 2010 WL 3433998 , at *1 (Tex.App.-Waco Sept. 1, 2010) (opinion on reh'g) (not designated for publication) (hereinafter Black II ). [2] 917 S.W.2d 799 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). [3] "STOP" is an apparent acronym, but insofar as we have been able to determine, Dickey did not testify to, and the record does not otherwise reveal, what it stands for. [4] See State v. Cullen, 195 S. | 2 | 3 |
Graves v. Stategreen2 sentences2017State v. Velasquez, 487 S.W.3d 661, 666 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. granted); Graves, 307 S.W.3d at 489 ; Ford v. State, 268 S.W.3d 620, 621 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008), rev’d on other grounds by 305 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 2009) (coming close to resolving the issue—and arguably resolving the issue by implication against appellant—but ultimately reversing the judgment of the court of appeals under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 28.01 section 1(6) and affirming the judgment of the trial court). 3 Compare Vanmeter v. State, 165 S.W.3d 68 , 74–75 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that the right of confrontation is a trial right, not a pretrial right, and therefore does not apply at a pretrial suppression hearing), and Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref' | 2 | 3 |
Rachal v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex. Crim. 2012NOTES [1] Black v. State, No. 10-08-00290-CR, 2010 WL 2953129 , at *2 (Tex.App.-Waco July 28, 2010) (opinion on original submission) (not designated for publication) (hereinafter, Black I ); Black v. State, No. 10-08-00290-CR, 2010 WL 3433998 , at *1 (Tex.App.-Waco Sept. 1, 2010) (opinion on reh'g) (not designated for publication) (hereinafter Black II ). [2] 917 S.W.2d 799 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). [3] "STOP" is an apparent acronym, but insofar as we have been able to determine, Dickey did not testify to, and the record does not otherwise reveal, what it stands for. [4] See State v. Cullen, 195 S. | 2 | 3 |
Black v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Black v. State, 362 S.W.3d 626, 631 (Tex. Crim. 2019See id. | 2 | 2 |
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2017State v. Velasquez, 487 S.W.3d 661, 666 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. granted); Graves, 307 S.W.3d at 489 ; Ford v. State, 268 S.W.3d 620, 621 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008), rev’d on other grounds by 305 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex. Crim. 2010Ford v. State, 268 S.W.3d 620, 621 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008), overruled on other grounds, 305 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (“The prosecutor obviously understood appellant’s objection because she responded appropriately: Hearsay is admissible in a pretrial suppression hearing; the Confrontation Clause does not apply to a pre-trial suppression hearing.”). | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Dennogreen2 sentences2012See Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964). 2012See Jackson v. Denno , 378 U.S. 368 (1964). | 2 | 2 |
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Defendant’s unsworn statement consistent with what is allowed in art. 28.01, § 1(6)); Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (suppression hearing began with the State stipulating that the case involved a warrantless arrest); State v. Miller, 116 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, no pet.) (The plain language of article 28.01, § 1(6), "unambiguously gives a trial court the discretion to determine the format of a pretrial suppression hearing”; finding nothing in prior cases "to suggest that the court of criminal appeals intended to deny trial courts the discretion to require 2009Defendant's unsworn statement consistent with what is allowed in art. 28.01, § 1(6)); Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (suppression hearing began with the State stipulating that the case involved a warrantless arrest); State v. Miller, 116 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, no pet.) (The plain language of article 28.01, § 1(6), "unambiguously gives a trial court the discretion to determine the format of a pretrial suppression hearing"; finding nothing in prior cases "to suggest that the court of criminal appeals intended to deny trial courts the discretion to require | 2 | 2 |
Rangel v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Rangel v. State, 250 S.W.3d 96, 97-98 (Tex. Crim. 2009See Rangel v. State , 250 S.W.3d 96, 97-98 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See id. 2009See id. | 2 | 2 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2009See Miranda , 384 U.S. at 467-73 ; Edwards , 451 U.S. at 480 . (2) Finally, the contentions appellant now makes were raised at the pretrial suppression hearing and overruled by the trial court. 2009See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467-73 ; Edwards, 451 U.S. at 480 .2 Finally, the contentions appellant now makes were raised at the pretrial suppression hearing and overruled by the trial court. | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118, 126 (Tex. Crim. 2001Jones v. State , 833 S.W.2d 118, 126 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Robinsongreen2 sentences1998While a pretrial writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to review a double jeopardy claim, Stephens 806 S.W.2d at 814; Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tex.Crim.App.1982), Alt is not arguing, and could not successfully argue, that the administrative determination of probable cause precludes his subsequent criminal prosecution. 6 Instead, he argues only that the previous determination of probable cause at the administrative hearing collaterally es-tops the State from relitigating this issue at the pretrial suppression hearing. 1998Cf Tharp v. State, 935 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (administrative suspension of a driver’s license does not amount to “punishment” for the “same offense” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment); Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d at 556 (appellant not put in jeopai’dy by being given examining trial); Ex parte Lane, 806 S.W.2d 336, 340 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1991, no pet.) (declining to extend collateral estoppel to bar prosecution because, among other things, pri- or bail hearing not used as, nor intended to be used as, punishment). | 2 | 2 |
Credit Bureau Services-New Orleans v. Hydegreen2 sentences1996McDole v. State, 579 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Saenz v. State, 670 S.W.2d 667 , 671 n. 3 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref'd); see also, Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989); Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). 1993McDole v. State, 579 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Saenz v. State, 670 S.W.2d 667 , 671 n. 3 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref'd); see also Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989); Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). 2 . | 2 | 2 |
Granados v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). 2008Distinguishing Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) The State relies heavily on Granados for the proposition that none of the Texas Rules of Evidence (save those for privileges) apply at a pretrial suppression hearing. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Eliasgreen2 sentences2019Instead, the proper solution to this problem is to require the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a motion to suppress evidence."); State v. Elias , 339 S.W.3d 667 , 677 (Tex. Crim. 2019Instead, the proper solution to this problem is to require the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a motion to suppress MARTINEZ — 6 evidence.”); State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 677 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
Curry v. Stategreen2 sentences2017App. 2009); Vanmeter v. State, 165 S.W.3d 68, 74 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d); but see Curry v. State, 228 S.W.3d 292, 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. ref’d) (disagreeing with Vanmeter, finding Confrontation Clause applies in a pretrial suppression hearing). 2015App. 2009) (coming close to resolving the issue—and arguably resolving the issue by implication against appellant—but ultimately reversing the judgment of the court of appeals under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 28.01 section 1(6) and affirming the judgment of the trial court). 3 Compare Vanmeter v. State, 165 S.W.3d 68 , 74–75 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that the right of confrontation is a trial right, not a pretrial right, and therefore does not apply at a pretrial suppression hearing), and Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref' | 1 | 2 |
| Paul Anthony Crayton v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thibaut v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Calloway v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mechlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Lykos v. Finegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Velasquezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morales v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Herrera v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hoyos v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Sokolowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cole v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holmes v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martin v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Balentine v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hailey v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Janecka v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Curry v. Stategreen2 sentences2017App. 2009); Vanmeter v. State, 165 S.W.3d 68, 74 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d); but see Curry v. State, 228 S.W.3d 292, 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. ref’d) (disagreeing with Vanmeter, finding Confrontation Clause applies in a pretrial suppression hearing). 2015App. 2009) (coming close to resolving the issue—and arguably resolving the issue by implication against appellant—but ultimately reversing the judgment of the court of appeals under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 28.01 section 1(6) and affirming the judgment of the trial court). 3 Compare Vanmeter v. State, 165 S.W.3d 68 , 74–75 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that the right of confrontation is a trial right, not a pretrial right, and therefore does not apply at a pretrial suppression hearing), and Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref' | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2015April 15, 2015 - II - Charged with driving while intoxicated with a child passenger under fifteen years of age, Appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013) during a pretrial suppression hearing. 2015No motion for rehearing was filed. - II - Charged with felony driving while intoxicated, Appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013) during a pretrial suppression hearing. | 7 | 2015–2015 |
Saenz v. State
green
2 sentences1996McDole v. State, 579 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Saenz v. State, 670 S.W.2d 667 , 671 n. 3 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref'd); see also, Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989); Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). 1995McDole v. State, 579 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Saenz v. State, 670 S.W.2d 667 , 671 n. 3 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref’d); see also Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). 2 . | 4 | 1992–1996 |
Waller v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2023Waller involved a pretrial suppression hearing. 467 U.S. at 47 . 2021Waller involved a pretrial suppression hearing. 467 U.S. at 47 . | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2009United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30 ). 1 Appellant has directed the bulk of the record references in his brief to the reporter’s record from the trial rather than the reporter’s record from the pretrial suppression hearing. 3 Reasonable suspicion exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer has specific, articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him to reasonably conclude that a particular person is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. 1993Because of the manner in which appellant has framed this issue vis-a-vis his authorities, and based upon the testimony of Deputies Nettles and Sanders both in the pretrial suppression hearing and during the trial itself, we see the focus of our inquiry subtly shifting away from “custodial interrogation” and toward the concept of “investigative detention.” Indeed, the Supreme Court in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), acknowledged the symbiotic relationship of Miranda ⅛ “custodial interrogation” (Fifth Amendment), and the concept of “investigative deten | 2 | 1993–2009 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2009See Miranda , 384 U.S. at 467-73 ; Edwards , 451 U.S. at 480 . (2) Finally, the contentions appellant now makes were raised at the pretrial suppression hearing and overruled by the trial court. 2009See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467-73 ; Edwards, 451 U.S. at 480 .2 Finally, the contentions appellant now makes were raised at the pretrial suppression hearing and overruled by the trial court. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Estrada v. State
green
2 sentences2008"When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a mixed question of law and fact (as is the determination of probable cause in the pretrial suppression hearing in this case), the court of appeals may review de novo the trial court's application of the law of search and seizure to the facts of the case." Estrada, 154 S.W.3d at 607 . 2008"When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a mixed question of law and fact (as is the determination of probable cause in the pretrial suppression hearing in this case), the court of appeals may review de novo the trial court's application of the law of search and seizure to the facts of the case." Estrada , 154 S.W.3d at 607 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences2001Id. 1984By his first three grounds of error and relying primarily on Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and other similar cases, the appellant claims that his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated because the pre-trial identification procedures were so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. | 2 | 1984–2001 |
| Balderas v. State green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State of Texas v. Esparza, Carlos green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Simon v. Levario green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State Ex Rel. Watkins v. CREUZOT green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Carmouche v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Holmes v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Strauss v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Boykin v. Alabama green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Kelly v. State green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Flores v. Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Rumsey v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Webb v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Tigner v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Brown v. Illinois green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Childress v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Arellano v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Berkemer v. McCarty green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| McCambridge v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Gannett Co. v. DePasquale green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Writt v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Billie v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.