88 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2024 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.green2 sentences2024Court Commentary This section was added to elaborate on Florida’s adoption of the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996), and it should be interpreted in light of that opinion. 2023Our supreme court in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996), adopted the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens. | 15 | 37 |
Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc.green2 sentences2024The Florida Supreme Court has expounded upon this presumption, opining that “the plaintiff's right to choose the forum is not just one factor to consider in the forum non conveniens analysis, but is a strong presumption that can be overcome only when the balance is tipped strongly in favor of the defendant.” Id. at 1096 (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (“[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”)). 2024The Florida Supreme Court has emphasized that “the plaintiff’s right to choose the forum is not just one factor to consider in the forum non conveniens analysis, but is a strong presumption that can be overcome only when the balance is tipped strongly in favor of the defendant.” Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1096 . | 12 | 15 |
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbertred2 sentences2024The Florida Supreme Court has expounded upon this presumption, opining that “the plaintiff's right to choose the forum is not just one factor to consider in the forum non conveniens analysis, but is a strong presumption that can be overcome only when the balance is tipped strongly in favor of the defendant.” Id. at 1096 (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (“[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”)). 2024The Florida Supreme Court has expounded upon this presumption, opining that “the plaintiff's right to choose the forum is not just one factor to consider in the forum non conveniens analysis, but is a strong presumption that can be overcome only when the balance is tipped strongly in favor of the defendant.” Id. at 1096 (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (“[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”)). | 4 | 7 |
Houston v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences1997Kinney v. Continental Insurance In Kinney, the supreme court expressed concern that the trend in private international law of attempting to file suit in American courts for injuries sustained elsewhere was rising to abusive levels in Florida, caused by the forum non conveniens doctrine espoused in the court's opinion in Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla.1978), which was less stringent than the federal doctrine. 1996The attractiveness of Florida has arisen from the general belief that our opinion in Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1978), announced a forum non conveniens doctrine less vigorous than the federal doctrine first outlined in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 , 67 S.Ct. 839 , 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1946), as the latter has been refined through the years. | 3 | 8 |
Telemundo Network Group v. Azteca Intern.green2 sentences2021“The burden of proof of each element in the forum non conveniens analysis is on the [d]efendants.” Publicidad Vepaco, C.A. v. Mezerhane, 176 So. 3d 273, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citing Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). 2016“The deféndarit attempting to dismiss the action on forum non conve-niens grounds bears the burden of proof on each element of the Kinney analysis.” Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l Corp., 957 So.2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). | 3 | 3 |
Julio Ignacio Lourido Leon v. Million Air, Inc.green2 sentences2024Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092 (quoting Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 , 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)).12 See generally Johnny’s Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools Caribbean, LLC, 307 So. 3d 832 , 835 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[G]enerally, an order denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens will be reversed where neither the order nor the hearing transcript establishes that the trial court engaged in a meaningful analysis of the relevant, requisite Kinney factors.”); Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falz, 174 So. 3d 383 , 385–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[A] trial court abuses its discretion in den 2013The Eleventh Circuit has explained that “although ‘private factors are generally considered more important’ than public ones,” a proper forum non conveniens inquiry actually requires courts to “consider both public and private factors ‘in all cases.’” Id. (quoting Leon, 251 F.3d at 1311). | 2 | 3 |
Eggers v. Eggersgreen2 sentences2022To that end, our court has made clear that “[w]hen a forum non conveniens challenge is raised, it is incumbent upon the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice.” Hall v. Animals.com, L.L.C., 171 So. 3d 216, 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (quoting Eggers, 776 So. 2d at 1098 ). 2015See Utilicore Corp. v. Bednarsh, 730 So.2d 853, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that trial court could not transfer venue based on forum non conveniens where defendants had not filed motion to transfer under section 47.122, nor had court given advance notice that it desired to entertain claim on its own motion). “[W]hen a forum non conveniens challenge is raised, it is incumbent upon the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice.” Eggers, 776 So.2d at 1098 . | 2 | 3 |
Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Katogreen2 sentences2024Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092 (quoting Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 , 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)).12 See generally Johnny’s Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools Caribbean, LLC, 307 So. 3d 832 , 835 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[G]enerally, an order denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens will be reversed where neither the order nor the hearing transcript establishes that the trial court engaged in a meaningful analysis of the relevant, requisite Kinney factors.”); Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falz, 174 So. 3d 383 , 385–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[A] trial court abuses its discretion in den 2006See, e.g., Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato, 734 So.2d 557, 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). | 2 | 2 |
Woods v. Nova Companies Belize Ltd.green2 sentences2023Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). 4 Merits “The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, which translates to mean ‘inconvenient forum,’ is an equitable, judicially crafted rule designed to allow a court to dismiss, in certain limited circumstances, a lawsuit with little connection to Florida that would be better suited and fairly litigated elsewhere.” Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1090 (Fla. 2013). 2004Woods v. Nova Companies Belize Ltd., 739 So.2d 617, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 766 So.2d 222 (Fla.2000); Carenza v. Sun Intern. | 2 | 2 |
Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Companygreen2 sentences1996NOTES [1] Kinney was decided after the rulings below. [2] The importance of this factor is demonstrated by the holdings under pre- Kinney Florida law, see Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. Swain, 362 So.2d 17 (Fla.1978); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla.1978)(citing Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 224 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)), that the mere fact that Florida was the corporate defendant's state of incorporation or principal place of business absolutely precluded the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine because a corporation could not be "inconvenienced" defending an action 1978In Adams v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 224 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) the court discussed the various Florida decisions applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens. | 1 | 3 |
Greyhound Corporation v. Rosartgreen2 sentences1977Greyhound Corporation v. Rosart, supra. The absence of one of these two elements would preclude the application of the doctrine. 1962Greyhound Corporation v. Rosart, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 708 ; Tivoli Realty v. Interstate Circuit, 5th Cir. 1948, 167 F.2d 155 . | 1 | 3 |
Cardoso v. FPB BANKgreen1 sentence2024Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092 (quoting Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 , 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)).12 See generally Johnny’s Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools Caribbean, LLC, 307 So. 3d 832 , 835 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[G]enerally, an order denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens will be reversed where neither the order nor the hearing transcript establishes that the trial court engaged in a meaningful analysis of the relevant, requisite Kinney factors.”); Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falz, 174 So. 3d 383 , 385–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[A] trial court abuses its discretion in den | 1 | 1 |
Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falzgreen1 sentence2024Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092 (quoting Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 , 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)).12 See generally Johnny’s Pool Super Ctr., Inc. v. Foreverpools Caribbean, LLC, 307 So. 3d 832 , 835 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[G]enerally, an order denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens will be reversed where neither the order nor the hearing transcript establishes that the trial court engaged in a meaningful analysis of the relevant, requisite Kinney factors.”); Sybac Solar AG, Co. v. Falz, 174 So. 3d 383 , 385–86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[A] trial court abuses its discretion in den | 1 | 1 |
Nos. 88-5835, 88-5931green1 sentence2022Further, we are mindful that ordinarily, “a forum non conveniens claim . . . fails to survive the mooting effect of the actual litigation of the suit in the putative inconvenient forum.” Demenus v. Tinton 35 Inc., 873 F.2d 50, 54 (3d Cir. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Animals.com, L.L.C.green1 sentence2022To that end, our court has made clear that “[w]hen a forum non conveniens challenge is raised, it is incumbent upon the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice.” Hall v. Animals.com, L.L.C., 171 So. 3d 216, 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (quoting Eggers, 776 So. 2d at 1098 ). | 1 | 1 |
Publicidad Vepaco, C.A. v. Mezerhanegreen1 sentence2021“The burden of proof of each element in the forum non conveniens analysis is on the [d]efendants.” Publicidad Vepaco, C.A. v. Mezerhane, 176 So. 3d 273, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citing Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Baranek v. AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATIONgreen1 sentence2020Optical Corp., 941 So. 2d 1214, 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding: “The existence of an adequate, available forum is critical to the forum non conveniens analysis; if there is no adequate, alternative forum, the inquiry ends and dismissal is not proper”). 6 alternative forum—here, the failure to consider Indiana—was an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
| Abeid-Saba v. Carnival Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Vero v. Verogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reidgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Resor v. Wellinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| S2 Global, Inc. v. Tactical Operational Support Services, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S.green | 1 | 1 |
| C.A. La Seguridad, as Subrogee v. Transytur Line, in Personam and M/v Nela Altomare, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., in Remgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Utilicore Corp. v. Bednarshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rabie Cortez v. Palace Holdings, S.A. De C.V.green | 1 | 1 |
| Albert M. Coakes and Valerie Coakes v. Arabian American Oil Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Fish Peddler, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Younggreen | 1 | 1 |
| SAFETY NAT. CAS., CORP. v. Florida Mun. Ins. Trustgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ground Improv. Tech. v. Merchants Bonding Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Victoria A. Lehman, as of the Estate of Robert Wayne Lehman, Deceased v. Humphrey Cayman, Ltd. And Holiday Inns, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Greene v. Whirlpool Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Diron v. City of Eastlakegreen | 1 | 1 |
| International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Pawlakgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cambridge Filter Corp. v. International Filter Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| River Road International, L.P. v. Josephthal Lyon & Ross Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| National Aircraft Service, Inc. v. New York Airlines, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Waite v. SUMMIT LEASING & CAPITAL INTERN. CORP.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Ryszard Szumlicz v. Norwegian America Line, Inc., Etc., Global Cruises, Ltd., Etc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Southern Railway Company v. McCubbins
green
2 sentences1999Southern Ry. v. McCubbins, 196 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). 1978All of the cases can be brought in the Republic of Honduras. *197 Therefore, based upon the decision of Southern Railway Company v. McCubbins, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So.2d 512 and Faulkner v. Varig, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So.2d 805 , these cases are dismissed based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens." The able trial judge has set forth sound reasons why the trial of these cases should be held in Honduras. | 5 | 1969–1999 |
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
green
2 sentences1997The majority forsakes the interests of justice for the sake of mere illusory convenience and relegates plaintiff's case to a forum that will afford her no relief. [4] In so doing, the court contravenes Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 , 102 S.Ct. 252, 265 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981), in which the Court stated We do not hold that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law should never be a relevant consideration in a forum non conveniens inquiry. 1997The majority forsakes the interests of justice for the sake of mere illusory convenience and relegates plaintiff's case to a forum that will afford her no relief. [4] In so doing, the court contravenes Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 , 102 S.Ct. 252, 265 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981), in which the Court stated We do not hold that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law should never be a relevant consideration in a forum non conveniens inquiry. | 3 | 1997–2015 |
Hagen v. Viney
green
2 sentences1974We find error and reverse, on authority of Hagen v. Viney, 124 Fla. 747 , 169 So. 391 , and Southern Railway Company *99 v. McCubbins, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So.2d 512 . 1974We find error and reverse, on authority of Hagen v. Viney, 124 Fla. 747 , 169 So. 391 , and Southern Railway Company *99 v. McCubbins, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So.2d 512 . | 3 | 1959–1974 |
Pain v. United Technologies Corp.
green
2 sentences2004Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). 2004Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Rosso v. GOLDEN SURF TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
green
2 sentences2004Corp., 711 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding the lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding dismissal appropriate under doctrine of forum non conveniens), citing Kinney, 674 So.2d at 86 . 2004Corp., 711 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding the lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding dismissal appropriate under doctrine of forum non conveniens), citing Kinney, 674 So.2d at 86 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Membreño v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A.
green
2 sentences2004Therefore, "Carnival's ownership of Costa's stock does not impact the forum non conveniens analysis." Id. 2004Therefore, “Carnival’s ownership of Cos-ta’s stock does not impact the forum non conveniens analysis.” Id. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Colmenares-Hernandez v. United States
green
2 sentences2004Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). 2004Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Pain v. United Technologies Corp.
green
2 sentences2004Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). 2004Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Chapman v. Dow Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences2004Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). 2004Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C.Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Henry v. Windjammer Barefoot Cruises
green
2 sentences2004However, our recent decision in Henry v. Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, 851 So.2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) has cast some confusion in the admiralty bar. 2004However, our recent decision in Henry v. Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, 851 So.2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) has cast some confusion in the admiralty bar. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Seaboard Coast Line RR Co. v. Swain
green
2 sentences1996NOTES [1] Kinney was decided after the rulings below. [2] The importance of this factor is demonstrated by the holdings under pre- Kinney Florida law, see Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. Swain, 362 So.2d 17 (Fla.1978); Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla.1978)(citing Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 224 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)), that the mere fact that Florida was the corporate defendant's state of incorporation or principal place of business absolutely precluded the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine because a corporation could not be "inconvenienced" defending an action 1991Co. v. Swain, 362 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1978), the issue of whether the forum non conveniens doctrine applies where a party is a resident of the locality where the suit was filed, arose in the factual framework of a choice between two or more states or counties within the continental United States. | 2 | 1991–1996 |
Ford Motor Co. v. James
green
1 sentence2023Courts consider three factors in deciding whether to grant a motion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens: “(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice.” Ford Motor Co. v. James, 33 So. 3d 91 , 92–93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (2022). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. v. Friend
green
1 sentence2021See, e.g., Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1097 (Fla. 2013); Taurus Int’l Mfg., Inc. v. Friend, 217 So. 3d 1133 , 1134 3 The rule outlines four factors the trial court may consider when ruling on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens: (1) whether “an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties”; (2) whether “all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum choice”; (3) “if the balance of private i | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Staton v. Staton green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| RYDER SYSTEM, INC. v. Davis green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| American Dredging Co. v. Miller green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| NATIONAL RIFLE ASS'N OF AM. v. Linotype Co. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Pearl Cruises v. Bestor green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Armadora Naval Dominicana, SA v. Garcia green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Lugones v. Sandals Resorts, Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| cluster 490159 green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Jayne Reid-Walen, Gary Walen v. Leroy Hansen, Irene Hansen, D/B/A Yellow Bird Sea-Tel green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Rojas v. KLOSTER CRUISE, A/S green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Kelly v. Sun & Sea Estates, Ltd., Inc. neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Pampin Lopez green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Perez v. Jones green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Corpus Christi Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Corpus Christi green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Continental Ins. v. Kinney System, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Shirlei Kirschner Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Pendleton v. Burlington Northern, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Erie Railroad v. Tompkins green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Saul Munoz Sibaja, Rafaela Arrieta Porra v. Dow Chemical Company green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Mead ex rel. Mead v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Islamic Republic of Iran v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Medina v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.