496 Ohio opinions name it 9 courts 1978–2026 144 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Brecksville v. Cookgreen2 sentences2024“Furthermore, when reviewing the Lawrence App. No. 23CA31 12 legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state.” Id., citing Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 (1996). 2021“Furthermore, when reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state.” Id., citing Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 (1996). {¶12} Here, the trial court initially issued a judgment entry simply granting the motion to dismiss, without including any findings of facts. | 50 | 143 |
State v. Butchergreen2 sentences2023Boyd relies on State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28 , 500 N.E.2d 1368 (1986), to allege that once a defendant makes a prima facie case of a speedy trial violation, the burden of production shifts to the -17- State to establish justification for the extension of speedy trial time. 2023Boyd relies on State v. Butcher, 27 Ohio St.3d 28 , 500 N.E.2d 1368 (1986), to allege that once a defendant makes a prima facie case of a speedy trial violation, the burden of production shifts to the -17- State to establish justification for the extension of speedy trial time. | 9 | 16 |
State v. Mastersgreen2 sentences2012State v. Jenkins, 2011–Ohio–837 at ¶ 15, Cuyahoga App. No. 95006, citing State v. Masters, 172 Ohio App.3d 666 , 2007–Ohio–4229, 876 N.E.2d 1007 . {¶26} A speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact. 2012State v. Jenkins, 2011–Ohio–837 at ¶ 15, Cuyahoga App. No. 95006, citing State v. Masters, 172 Ohio App.3d 666 , 2007–Ohio–4229, 876 N.E.2d 1007 . {¶26} A speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact. | 7 | 15 |
Brecksville v. Cookgreen2 sentences2026Brecksville v. Cook, 1996-Ohio-171, ¶ 15 . 2011“Furthermore, when reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state.” Id. citing Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 , 1996-Ohio-171 . | 6 | 28 |
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2025However, Appellant claims that the Ohio Supreme Court has created an exception when a defendant seeks to challenge a constitutional violation of speedy trial rights based in part on Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). {¶9} Before engaging in a Barker analysis, we must determine whether Appellant waived her right to challenge an alleged speedy trial violation due to her guilty plea. 2023“Generally, a delay that approaches one year is presumptively prejudicial.” Long at ¶ 14 . {¶9} “Once the accused makes a showing of presumptive prejudice, courts must then consider the second prong of the speedy trial analysis, which is a ‘balancing test in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed.’” McCain at ¶ 12, quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 . | 6 | 27 |
Doggett v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026“The factors include: (1) the length of the delay ‘between accusation and trial’; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion, if any, of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice, if any, to the defendant.” Id., citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992), and State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3954 , ¶ 88. {¶ 12} “None of the factors is controlling because a ‘balancing test necessarily compels’ a court to evaluate an alleged speedy trial violation ‘on an ad hoc basis,’ meaning that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting 2025“The factors include: (1) the length of the delay ‘between accusation and trial’; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the 20 defendant’s assertion, if any, of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice, if any, to the defendant.” Id., citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992), and State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3954 , ¶ 88. {¶ 58} “None of the factors is controlling because a ‘balancing test necessarily compels’ a court to evaluate an alleged speedy trial violation ‘on an ad hoc basis,’ meaning that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 15, quoti | 4 | 26 |
State v. Pachaygreen2 sentences2023"The statutory speedy trial provisions, R.C. 2945.71 et seq., constitute a rational effort to enforce the constitutional right to a public speedy trial of an accused charged with the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor and shall be strictly enforced by the courts of this state." State v. Pachay, 64 Ohio St.2d 218 , 416 N.E.2d 589 , syllabus (1980). {¶ 8} A speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact. 2023"The statutory speedy trial provisions, R.C. 2945.71 et seq., constitute a rational effort to enforce the constitutional right to a public speedy trial of an accused charged with the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor and shall be strictly enforced by the courts of this state." State v. Pachay, 64 Ohio St.2d 218 , 416 N.E.2d 589 , syllabus (1980). {¶ 8} A speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact. | 4 | 21 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2026However, “the length of the delay is a particularly important factor as it ‘is to some extent a triggering mechanism.’” State v. Lee, 2024-Ohio-1802, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), quoting Barker at 530 . 2025“However, . . . the length of the delay is a particularly important factor as it ‘is to some extent a triggering mechanism.’” State v. Lee, 2024-Ohio-1802, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), quoting Barker at 530 . | 4 | 4 |
State v. Larkin, Unpublished Decision (6-21-2005)green2 sentences2024Id. {¶19} When reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy-trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against appellee. 2021Id. {¶21} When reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy-trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against appellee. | 3 | 17 |
State v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2024State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274 , 2006-Ohio-4478 , ¶ 8. {¶ 39} Here, Blacker was arrested for the felonious assault of Betsy on March 5, 2021. 2022See also State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274 , 2006-Ohio-4478 , 853 N.E.2d 283 , ¶ 8. {¶ 18} When the trial court sua sponte grants a continuance under R.C. 2945.72(H), the court “must enter the order of continuance and the reasons therefor by journal entry prior to the expiration of the time limit prescribed in R.C. 2945.71 for bringing a defendant to trial.” State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 , 441 N.E.2d 571 (1982), syllabus. {¶ 19} “When an accused demonstrates a prima facie case of a speedy trial violation by showing that the trial was held beyond the time limit set by the statute, the burde | 3 | 8 |
State v. Rileygreen2 sentences2007The Ohio General Assembly enacted the provisions in R.C. 2945.71 et seq. in an effort to prescribe “ ‘reasonable speedy trial periods consistent with these constitutional provisions.’ ” Riley at 735, 2005-Ohio-4337 , 834 N.E.2d 887 , quoting State v. O’Brien (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 7, 8 , 516 N.E.2d 218 . {¶ 34} When reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy-trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state. 2007The Ohio General Assembly enacted the provisions in R.C. 2945.71 et seq. in an effort to prescribe “ ‘reasonable speedy trial periods consistent with these constitutional provisions.’ ” Riley at 735, 2005-Ohio-4337 , 834 N.E.2d 887 , quoting State v. O’Brien (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 7, 8 , 516 N.E.2d 218 . {¶ 34} When reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy-trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state. | 3 | 7 |
| State v. Dankworthgreen | 3 | 4 |
| State v. Maischgreen | 3 | 4 |
| State v. Knottgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Gray, 20980 (8-31-2007)green | 3 | 3 |
State v. Long (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025R.C. 2945.71(E). ”Review of a speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Long, 2020-Ohio-5363, ¶ 15 . 2025“If the defendant can make this showing, the burden shifts to the State to establish that some exception[s] applied to toll the time and to make the trial timely.” Gray at ¶ 15, citing State v. Price, 122 Ohio App.3d 65, 68 (10th Dist. 1997). {¶ 21} “Review of a speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Long, 2020-Ohio-5363, ¶ 15 . | 2 | 36 |
State v. O'Briengreen2 sentences2026O'Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d at 9-10 . {¶67} Accordingly, where there is a proper revocation of a time waiver, the statutory speedy trial time does not then reactivate; instead, the question for a speedy trial claim becomes whether the delay post-revocation was constitutionally unreasonable considering the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the defendant. 2023After making an express written speedy trial waiver, the defendant cannot assert a speedy trial violation unless he “files a formal written objection to any further continuances and makes a demand for trial, following which the state must bring him to trial within a reasonable time.” Id. | 2 | 19 |
State v. Barnes, 90847 (10-23-2008)green2 sentences2011Appellant was denied speedy trial rights due the unreasonable delay by State to respond to the discovery request.” {¶ 42} When an appellate court reviews an allegation of a speedy trial violation, it “should apply a de novo standard of review to the legal issues but afford great deference to any findings of fact made by the trial court.” State v. Barnes, Cuyahoga App. No. 90847, 2008-Ohio-5472, ¶17 . {¶ 43} R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) requires the state to bring a defendant accused of committing a felony to trial within 270 days after his arrest. “[E]ach day during which the accused is held in jail in 2011Speedy Trial {¶ 18} In the first assigned error, Shabazz argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss for a violation of his right to a speedy trial. {¶ 19} When an appellate court reviews an allegation of a speedy trial violation, it “should apply a de novo standard of review to the legal issues but afford great deference to any findings of fact made by the trial court.” State v. Barnes, Cuyahoga App. No. 90847, 2008-Ohio-5472, ¶17 . {¶ 20} The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, guarantee | 2 | 8 |
State v. Wagnergreen2 sentences2026“The factors include: (1) the length of the delay ‘between accusation and trial’; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion, if any, of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice, if any, to the defendant.” Id., citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992), and State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3954 , ¶ 88. {¶ 12} “None of the factors is controlling because a ‘balancing test necessarily compels’ a court to evaluate an alleged speedy trial violation ‘on an ad hoc basis,’ meaning that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting 2025“The -10- factors include: (1) the length of the delay ‘between accusation and trial’; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion, if any, of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice, if any, to the defendant.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Wagner, 2021-Ohio-1671, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.) {¶ 26} “None of the factors is controlling because a ‘balancing test necessarily compels’ a court to evaluate an alleged speedy trial violation ‘on an ad hoc basis,’ meaning that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Barker at 530 . | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Kerbygreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Lovettgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Conkright, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2007)green | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Kendallgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Wilsongreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Blackgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Searsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Cimpayegreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Highgreen2 sentences2007Furthermore, when reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, an appellate court must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state." (Internal citations omitted.) Id. at 241-242 . 2003Furthermore, when reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, an appellate court must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state.” (Internal citations omitted.) Id. at 241-242 , 757 N.E.2d 1176 . {¶ 10} R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) requires that anyone charged with a felony be brought to trial within 270 days of arrest. | 1 | 12 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2024“Furthermore, when reviewing the Lawrence App. No. 23CA31 12 legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state.” Id., citing Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 (1996). 2021“Furthermore, when reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state.” Id., citing Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 (1996). {¶12} Here, the trial court initially issued a judgment entry simply granting the motion to dismiss, without including any findings of facts. | 1 | 10 |
State v. Pricegreen2 sentences2025“If the defendant can make this showing, the burden shifts to the State to establish that some exception[s] applied to toll the time and to make the trial timely.” Gray at ¶ 15, citing State v. Price, 122 Ohio App.3d 65, 68 (10th Dist. 1997). {¶ 21} “Review of a speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Long, 2020-Ohio-5363, ¶ 15 . 2025“If the defendant can make this showing, the burden shifts to the State to establish that some exception[s] applied to toll the time and to make the trial timely.” Gray at ¶ 15, citing State v. Price, 122 Ohio App.3d 65, 68 (10th Dist. 1997). {¶ 21} “Review of a speedy-trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Long, 2020-Ohio-5363, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 8 |
State v. Westerfieldgreen2 sentences2025According to Walker’s calculation, “the required date to be brought to trial would be December 20, 2023.” (Appellant’s Brief at 6). 1 The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence on June 25, 2024. -4- Case No. 2-24-05 Standard of Review {¶14} “Appellate review of a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss for a speedy-trial violation involves a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Westerfield, 2018-Ohio-2139, ¶ 17 (3d Dist.). “‘Accordingly, a reviewing court must give due deference to the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence but 2024Crawford No. 3-17-15, 2018-Ohio-2139, ¶ 17 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2017To be effective, the defendant’s speedy trial waiver must also “be expressed in writing or made in open court on the record.” State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 , 637 N.E.2d 903 (1994), syllabus. {¶11} As previously stated, the court explained the nature of the charges pending against Nagy as well as the possible penalties attendant to the charges. 2017To be effective, the defendant’s speedy trial waiver must also “be expressed in writing or made in open court on the record.” State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 , 637 N.E.2d 903 (1994), syllabus. {¶11} As previously stated, the court explained the nature of the charges pending against Nagy as well as the possible penalties attendant to the charges. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Adams (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026“The factors include: (1) the length of the delay ‘between accusation and trial’; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion, if any, of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice, if any, to the defendant.” Id., citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992), and State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3954 , ¶ 88. {¶ 12} “None of the factors is controlling because a ‘balancing test necessarily compels’ a court to evaluate an alleged speedy trial violation ‘on an ad hoc basis,’ meaning that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting 2025“The factors include: (1) the length of the delay ‘between accusation and trial’; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the 20 defendant’s assertion, if any, of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice, if any, to the defendant.” Id., citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992), and State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3954 , ¶ 88. {¶ 58} “None of the factors is controlling because a ‘balancing test necessarily compels’ a court to evaluate an alleged speedy trial violation ‘on an ad hoc basis,’ meaning that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 15, quoti | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Parkergreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Gartrellgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Thompsongreen | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Oregon v. Kohne
green
2 sentences2014City of Oregon v. Kohne, 117 Ohio App.3d 179 , 690 N.E.2d 66 (1997). {¶24} Appellant was served with the arrest warrant on January 23, 2012. 2014City of Oregon v. Kohne, 117 Ohio App.3d 179 , 690 N.E.2d 66 (1997). {¶24} Appellant was served with the arrest warrant on January 23, 2012. | 16 | 2002–2014 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2022He cites State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67, 70 , 538 N.E.2d 1025 (1989), where the Ohio Supreme Court held that a defendant’s speedy trial waiver as to an initial charge does not apply to additional charges stemming from the same set of facts brought subsequent to the execution of the waiver. {¶22} He also cites to our decision in State v. Carter, 7th Dist. 2022He cites State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67, 70 , 538 N.E.2d 1025 (1989), where the Ohio Supreme Court held that a defendant’s speedy trial waiver as to an initial charge does not apply to additional charges stemming from the same set of facts brought subsequent to the execution of the waiver. {¶22} He also cites to our decision in State v. Carter, 7th Dist. | 12 | 1995–2022 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2018In Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 (1996), the court referred to its prior admonition “to strictly construe speedy trial statutes against the state.” See, also, State v. Miller, 113 Ohio App.3d 606, 608 , 681 N.E.2d 970 (11th Dist.1996). 2018In Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 (1996), the court referred to its prior admonition “to strictly construe speedy trial statutes against the state.” See, also, State v. Miller, 113 Ohio App.3d 606, 608 , 681 N.E.2d 970 (11th Dist.1996). | 12 | 1998–2018 |
State v. Cloud
green
2 sentences2012Skinner, at ¶8; Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 , 1996-Ohio-171 , 661 N.E.2d 706 ; State v. Miller, 113 Ohio App.3d 606, 608 , 681 N.E.2d 90 (1996); State v. Cloud, 122 Ohio App.3d 626 , 702 N.E.2d 500 (1997). 2012Skinner, at ¶8; Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53, 57 , 1996-Ohio-171 , 661 N.E.2d 706 ; State v. Miller, 113 Ohio App.3d 606, 608 , 681 N.E.2d 90 (1996); State v. Cloud, 122 Ohio App.3d 626 , 702 N.E.2d 500 (1997). | 9 | 1998–2012 |
State v. Depue
green
2 sentences2008Id., citing Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 708-709." See, also, State v. Sanchez , 110 Ohio St.3d 274 , 2006-Ohio-4478 , 853 N.E.2d 283 , at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} Here, the triple-count provision is applicable because Mitchell was held *Page 4 solely on the pending charges listed above and was held in jail in lieu of bail. 2008Id., citing Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 708-709." See, also, State v. Sanchez , 110 Ohio St.3d 274 , 2006-Ohio-4478 , 853 N.E.2d 283 , at ¶ 8. {¶ 132} Although Moore argues that his speedy trial right was violated, he offers no timeline explaining tolling dates and starting dates for speedy trial purposes. {¶ 133} The juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction over Moore and transferred him to the general division of the common pleas court by judgment entry of April 8, 2004. | 9 | 2003–2008 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2021Clark No. 02-CA-85, 2003-Ohio-2825 , ¶ 17, and State v. Taylor, 98 Ohio St.3d 27 , 2002-Ohio-7071 , 781 N.E.2d 72, ¶ 37 . {¶ 56} To avoid this barrier, Lammers now contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a speedy trial violation in the trial court. 2021Clark No. 02-CA-85, 2003-Ohio-2825 , ¶ 17, and State v. Taylor, 98 Ohio St.3d 27 , 2002-Ohio-7071 , 781 N.E.2d 72, ¶ 37 . {¶ 56} To avoid this barrier, Lammers now contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a speedy trial violation in the trial court. | 6 | 2007–2024 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2025Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State v. Lloyd, 2022-Ohio-4259, ¶ 15 . “[I]n order to demonstrate that counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a motion to dismiss for speedy trial violations, the defendant must show that the motion would have been successful and the case would likely have been dismissed.” Mango at ¶ 18 , citing White at ¶ 7 . “ ‘Counsel cannot be [ineffective] for failing to file a fruitless motion.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Cottrell, 2012-Ohio-4583, ¶ 8 (4th Dist.). -6- {¶ 13} Because Jacks claims that her trial counsel was ineffect 2007Id., State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 . {¶ 24} Defendant does not identify when counsel should have filed a motion on a speedy trial claim at some point in time earlier than he did, arguing instead that "[a] reasonable attorney would have reached (sic) the possibility of Motion to Dismiss on speedy trial grounds when their (sic) client had been incarcerated for almost a year and a half on his charges." {¶ 25} Defendant was incarcerated for approximately sixteen months from his arrest on October 29, 2004 until his trial began. | 5 | 2005–2025 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2024Cuyahoga No. 100898, 2014-Ohio-4475, ¶ 51 , citing State v. Taylor, 98 Ohio St.3d 27 , 2002-Ohio-7017 , 781 N.E.2d 72, ¶ 32 . 2011The Ohio Supreme Court has also held that “a defendant is bound by his counsel’s waiver of speedy trial rights, even though the waiver might have been executed without his consent.” State v. Taylor, 98 Ohio St. 3d 27 , 2002-Ohio-7017, at ¶33 . {¶6} If a speedy trial waiver does not mention a specific time period, it is unlimited in duration. | 5 | 2007–2024 |
State v. Selvage
green
2 sentences2018State v. Selvage , 80 Ohio St.3d 465 , 468, 687 N.E.2d 433 (1997) ; Pierce , 1st Dist. 1999Additionally, Mantz relies on State v. Selvage (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 465 , to argue that a speedy trial violation had occurred because he was not arrested at the first reasonable opportunity. | 5 | 1998–2018 |
| State v. Morgan, 07ca0124-M (10-27-2008) green | 4 | 2009–2023 |
| Moore v. Arizona green | 4 | 1990–2013 |
| Village of Montpelier v. Greeno green | 3 | 1990–2025 |
| State v. Easley, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2005) green | 3 | 2018–2019 |
| State v. Burgess, Unpublished Decision (8-20-2004) green | 3 | 2007–2019 |
| State v. Baker green | 3 | 2001–2018 |
| State v. McBreen green | 3 | 1999–2017 |
| State v. Sinkovitz neutral | 3 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Thieshen green | 3 | 2013–2014 |
| State v. Steiner green | 3 | 2013–2014 |
| State v. Brown green | 3 | 2005–2012 |
| State v. Brown green | 3 | 2006–2012 |
| State v. Bauer green | 3 | 2007–2011 |
| State v. Stewart, Unpublished Decision (2-23-2006) green | 3 | 2007–2008 |
| State v. Bradley green | 3 | 2006–2008 |
| State v. Moreland green | 3 | 2002–2006 |
| State v. Burks green | 2 | 2022–2024 |
| State v. Mango green | 2 | 2022–2024 |
| State v. McKinney green | 2 | 2022–2023 |
| State v. Clark, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2006) neutral | 2 | 2009–2022 |
| State v. Snyder, Unpublished Decision (6-25-2004) neutral | 2 | 2020–2022 |
| State v. Ladd green | 2 | 2007–2021 |
| State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2006) neutral | 2 | 2016–2021 |
| State v. Davis green | 2 | 2014–2021 |
| State v. Fisher green | 2 | 2013–2021 |
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.