superseding cause doctrine in Washington

12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Campbell v. ITE Imperial Corp.green wash · 1987 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2023 2 sentences 2023See, e.g., Campbell v. ITE Imperial Corp., 107 Wn.2d 807, 812-14 , 733 P.2d 969 (1987); Roemmich, 21 Wn. 2017Campbell, 107 Wn.2d at 813 . "'If the likelihood that a third person may act in a particular manner is . . . one of the hazards which makes the actor negligent, such an act[,] whether innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal[,] does not prevent the actor from being 7 Safway offers Qualls v. Golden Arrow Farms, Inc., 47 Wn.2d 599 , 288 P.2d 1090 (1955), to argue that the issue of foreseeability of an intervening act merited a superseding cause instruction and should have been determined by the jury.	3	3
State v. Corngreen washctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000See State v. Corn, 95 Wash.App. 41, 52-53 , 975 P.2d 520 (1999) ("jury instructions must make the relevant legal standard manifestly apparent to the average juror"). 2000See State v. Corn, 95 Wash.App. 41, 52-53 , 975 P.2d 520 (1999) ("jury instructions must make the relevant legal standard manifestly apparent to the average juror").	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (34)

Case	Cited	Years
Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility District green washctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2023App. at 297 (quoting Riojas, 117 Wn. 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	2	2005–2023
Little v. PPG Industries, Inc. green washctapp · 1978 2 sentences 2021RTDI disagrees and chiefly relies on Little v. PPG Industries, Inc., 19 Wn. 2021App. 812 , 579 P.2d 940 (1978), aff’d as modified, 92 Wn.2d 118 , 594 P.2d 911 (1979), to argue it was entitled to a superseding cause instruction.	2	1980–2021
Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc. green wash · 1998 2 sentences 2019This is generally known as "the doctrine of superseding cause." Schooley, 134 Wash.2d at 482 , 951 P.2d 749 . ¶ 46 The attenuation doctrine originally served the same function in the context of the exclusionary rule that the superseding cause doctrine serves in the context of tort law. 2019This is generally known as "the doctrine of superseding cause." Schooley, 134 Wash.2d at 482 , 951 P.2d 749 . ¶ 46 The attenuation doctrine originally served the same function in the context of the exclusionary rule that the superseding cause doctrine serves in the context of tort law.	2	2005–2019
Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc. green wash · 1998 2 sentences 2019This is generally known as "the doctrine of superseding cause." Schooley, 134 Wash.2d at 482 , 951 P.2d 749 . ¶ 46 The attenuation doctrine originally served the same function in the context of the exclusionary rule that the superseding cause doctrine serves in the context of tort law. 2019This is generally known as "the doctrine of superseding cause." Schooley, 134 Wash.2d at 482 , 951 P.2d 749 . ¶ 46 The attenuation doctrine originally served the same function in the context of the exclusionary rule that the superseding cause doctrine serves in the context of tort law.	2	2005–2019
Smith v. Acme Paving Co. green washctapp · 1976 2 sentences 2005App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies “where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant’s original conduct and the plaintiff’s injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury”); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wn. 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	2	2005–2005
Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corp. green washctapp · 1987 2 sentences 2005App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies “where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant’s original conduct and the plaintiff’s injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury”); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wn. 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	2	2005–2005
Albertson v. Washington ex rel. Department of Social & Health Services green washctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2023It is true that Washington courts have stated the superseding cause inquiry “‘depends on whether the intervening act can reasonably be foreseen by the defendant.’” Albertson, 191 Wn.	1	2023–2023
State v. Mayfield green wash · 2019 1 sentence 2023Id. at 897 .	1	2023–2023
Herberg v. Swartz green wash · 1978 2 sentences 2021See, e.g., Campbell v. ITE Imperial Corp., 107 Wn.2d 807, 812 , 733 P.2d 969 (1987); Herberg v. Swartz, 89 Wn.2d 916, 927-28 , 578 P.2d 17 (1978); Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. 2021See, e.g., Campbell v. ITE Imperial Corp., 107 Wn.2d 807, 812 , 733 P.2d 969 (1987); Herberg v. Swartz, 89 Wn.2d 916, 927-28 , 578 P.2d 17 (1978); Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Mfg.	1	2021–2021
Little v. PPG Industries, Inc. green wash · 1979 2 sentences 2021App. 812 , 579 P.2d 940 (1978), aff’d as modified, 92 Wn.2d 118 , 594 P.2d 911 (1979), to argue it was entitled to a superseding cause instruction. 2021App. 812 , 579 P.2d 940 (1978), aff’d as modified, 92 Wn.2d 118 , 594 P.2d 911 (1979), to argue it was entitled to a superseding cause instruction.	1	2021–2021
State v. Afana green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2019Afana, 169 Wash.2d at 184 , 233 P.3d 879 . *895 ¶ 52 In sum, the attenuation doctrine has its origins in the tort law doctrine of superseding cause.	1	2019–2019
State v. Afana green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2019Afana, 169 Wash.2d at 184 , 233 P.3d 879 . *895 ¶ 52 In sum, the attenuation doctrine has its origins in the tort law doctrine of superseding cause.	1	2019–2019
Qualls v. Golden Arrow Farms, Inc. green wash · 1955 2 sentences 2017Campbell, 107 Wn.2d at 813 . "'If the likelihood that a third person may act in a particular manner is . . . one of the hazards which makes the actor negligent, such an act[,] whether innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal[,] does not prevent the actor from being 7 Safway offers Qualls v. Golden Arrow Farms, Inc., 47 Wn.2d 599 , 288 P.2d 1090 (1955), to argue that the issue of foreseeability of an intervening act merited a superseding cause instruction and should have been determined by the jury. 2017Campbell, 107 Wn.2d at 813 . "'If the likelihood that a third person may act in a particular manner is . . . one of the hazards which makes the actor negligent, such an act[,] whether innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal[,] does not prevent the actor from being 7 Safway offers Qualls v. Golden Arrow Farms, Inc., 47 Wn.2d 599 , 288 P.2d 1090 (1955), to argue that the issue of foreseeability of an intervening act merited a superseding cause instruction and should have been determined by the jury.	1	2017–2017
State v. Holt green washctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Judge green wash · 1984 2 sentences 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Souther green washctapp · 2000	1	2005–2005
City of Seattle v. Clark-Munoz green wash · 2004	1	2005–2005
Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist. green washctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Fernandez-Medina green wash · 2000 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
City of Seattle v. Clark-Munoz green wash · 2004	1	2005–2005
State v. Bosio neutral washctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Thomas green wash · 2004 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Fernandez-Medina green wash · 2000 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Leech green wash · 1990	1	2005–2005
State v. Garrett green washctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Hursh green washctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Neher green washctapp · 1988 2 sentences 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Hultenschmidt green washctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Thomas green wash · 2004	1	2005–2005
State v. Souther green washctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Bosio green washctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Holt green washctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
State v. Joy green wash · 1993 2 sentences 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184 2005Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 442 , 739 P.2d 1177 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987) (doctrine of superseding cause applies "where the act of a third party intervenes between the defendant's original conduct and the plaintiff's injury such that the defendant may no longer be deemed responsible for the injury"); cf. Smith v. Acme Paving Co., 16 Wash.App. 389, 396 , 558 P.2d 811 (1976) (original conduct not superseded if intervening conduct foreseeable). [27] Riojas v. Grant County Public Utility Dist., 117 Wash.App. 694, 699 , 72 P.3d 1093 (2003), review denied, 151 Wash.2d 1006 , 87 P.3d 1184	1	2005–2005
Boeing Co. v. State green wash · 1978	1	1987–1987

Where else courts name it

CT 27 (1985–2026) WA 12 (1980–2023) MD 10 (1975–2019) CA 9 (1976–2024) MS 8 (2002–2016) MN 6 (1982–2024) IN 6 (2002–2025) AZ 6 (2009–2022) TN 4 (2006–2019) WI 4 (1978–1999) MI 3 (2016–2023) TX 3 (2018–2021) IA 3 (1995–1999) KY 3 (2007–2025) NY 3 (2013–2013) VA 2 (2024–2025) UT 2 (2018–2024) GA 2 (1956–1956)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check