83 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1933–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Baxter v. State, 318 So. 3d 601 , 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Where ‘a rational trier of fact could lawfully find that the evidence proved the existence of all the elements of the crime . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.” (quoting Sandhaus v. State, 200 So. 3d 112, 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016))); Senser v. State, 243 So. 3d 1003, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“Trial judges have wide discretion in decisions regarding jury instructions, and the appellate courts will not reverse a decision regarding an inst 2024We also “will not reverse a decision regarding an instruction in the absence of a prejudicial error that would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Lewis v. State, 693 So. 2d 1055, 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). | 8 | 8 |
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.green2 sentences2025See In re Amends., 696 So. 2d at 1104 . 5 The court from there acknowledged that the Legislature is free to “implement this constitutional right” by “plac[ing] reasonable conditions upon it,” including conditioning “the right to appeal upon the preservation of a prejudicial error or the assertion of a fundamental error.” Id. at 1104–05; cf. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1134 (Fla. 1986) (stating that the Legislature had the “unquestioned” authority to enact a statute requiring an appellate court to find preserved, harmful errors before it reverses a judgment). 2025See In re Amends., 696 So. 2d at 1104 . 5 The court from there acknowledged that the Legislature is free to “implement this constitutional right” by “plac[ing] reasonable conditions upon it,” including conditioning “the right to appeal upon the preservation of a prejudicial error or the assertion of a fundamental error.” Id. at 1104–05; cf. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1134 (Fla. 1986) (stating that the Legislature had the “unquestioned” authority to enact a statute requiring an appellate court to find preserved, harmful errors before it reverses a judgment). | 3 | 5 |
Darling v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006) (holding that when requesting a new trial on the basis of a missing or lost transcript, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court); see also Armstrong v. State, 862 So.2d 705, 721 (Fla.2003) (finding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant "failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence"); Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 163 (Fla.2002) (finding unpersuasive Darling's argument th 2008See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006) (holding that when requesting a new trial on the basis of a missing or lost transcript, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court); Armstrong v. State, 862 So.2d 705, 721 (Fla.2003) (finding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant "failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence"); Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 163 (Fla.2002) (finding unpersuasive Darling's argument that becaus | 3 | 3 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006) (holding that when requesting a new trial on the basis of a missing or lost transcript, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court); see also Armstrong v. State, 862 So.2d 705, 721 (Fla.2003) (finding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant "failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence"); Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 163 (Fla.2002) (finding unpersuasive Darling's argument th 2008See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006) (holding that when requesting a new trial on the basis of a missing or lost transcript, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court); Armstrong v. State, 862 So.2d 705, 721 (Fla.2003) (finding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant "failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence"); Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 163 (Fla.2002) (finding unpersuasive Darling's argument that becaus | 3 | 3 |
Armstrong v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006) (holding that when requesting a new trial on the basis of a missing or lost transcript, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court); see also Armstrong v. State, 862 So.2d 705, 721 (Fla.2003) (finding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant "failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence"); Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 163 (Fla.2002) (finding unpersuasive Darling's argument th 2008See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006) (holding that when requesting a new trial on the basis of a missing or lost transcript, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court); Armstrong v. State, 862 So.2d 705, 721 (Fla.2003) (finding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant "failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence"); Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 163 (Fla.2002) (finding unpersuasive Darling's argument that becaus | 3 | 3 |
State v. DiGuiliogreen2 sentences2025See In re Amends., 696 So. 2d at 1104 . 5 The court from there acknowledged that the Legislature is free to “implement this constitutional right” by “plac[ing] reasonable conditions upon it,” including conditioning “the right to appeal upon the preservation of a prejudicial error or the assertion of a fundamental error.” Id. at 1104–05; cf. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1134 (Fla. 1986) (stating that the Legislature had the “unquestioned” authority to enact a statute requiring an appellate court to find preserved, harmful errors before it reverses a judgment). 1999Weekly D1540 , 1998 WL 329502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), for nonconstitutional errors we apply the prejudicial error test of section 924.051 rather than the constitutional harmless error test of State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). | 2 | 4 |
Jaimes v. Stategreen2 sentences2024The truly inconsistent verdict constituted fundamental error.7 “[A]n unpreserved error may be reviewed on appeal only if it rises to the level of fundamental error.” Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); see also § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”). 2024The truly inconsistent verdict constituted fundamental error.7 “[A]n unpreserved error may be reviewed on appeal only if it rises to the level of fundamental error.” Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); see also § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”). | 2 | 2 |
Sanford v. Rubingreen2 sentences2024Explaining the standard for identifying fundamental error, the Florida Supreme Court has stated: In defining the scope of the fundamental error doctrine, we have explained that a fundamental error is one that “goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action.” Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970). 2024Explaining the standard for identifying fundamental error, the Florida Supreme Court has stated: In defining the scope of the fundamental error doctrine, we have explained that a fundamental error is one that “goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action.” Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970). | 2 | 2 |
Goodwin v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See § 90.608, Fla. Stat. (“Any party . . . may attack the 3 See Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 544 (Fla. 1999) (“[T]he defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that an error occurred in the trial court, which was preserved by proper objection.”); § 924.051(7), Fla. Stat. (“[T]he party challenging the judgment or order of the trial court has the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court.”). 6 credibility of a witness by: (1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony. . . .”). 2015See Jackson, 983 So.2d at 568 (“Errors that have not been preserved by contemporaneous objection can be considered on direct appeal only if the error is fundamental.” (citing Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 544 (Fla.1999))); see also § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2008) (“An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”). | 2 | 2 |
Rodas v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Rodas v. State, 967 So.2d 444, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“The general rule is that a reversal in a criminal case must be based on a prejudicial error that was preserved by a timely objection in the trial court.”). 2011See Rodas v. State, 967 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("There is a difference between `per se reversible error' and `fundamental error.' The general rule is that a reversal in a criminal case must be based on a prejudicial error that was preserved by a timely objection in the trial court. | 2 | 2 |
Ferguson v. Singletarygreen2 sentences2008See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006) (holding that when requesting a new trial on the basis of a missing or lost transcript, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court); see also Armstrong v. State, 862 So.2d 705, 721 (Fla.2003) (finding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant "failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence"); Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 163 (Fla.2002) (finding unpersuasive Darling's argument th 2008See Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.2006) (holding that when requesting a new trial on the basis of a missing or lost transcript, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court); Armstrong v. State, 862 So.2d 705, 721 (Fla.2003) (finding that a new trial was not warranted where the defendant "failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence"); Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 163 (Fla.2002) (finding unpersuasive Darling's argument that becaus | 2 | 2 |
De Abreu v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Peart, 756 So.2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). 2000See Peart, 756 So.2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). | 2 | 2 |
Marriott v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Peart, 756 So.2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). 2000See Peart, 756 So.2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). | 2 | 2 |
Perriello v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Peart, 756 So.2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). 2000See Peart, 756 So.2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). | 2 | 2 |
Peart v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Peart, 756 So.2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). 2000See Peart, 756 So.2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). | 2 | 2 |
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.green2 sentences1998The supreme court has expressed the belief that "the legislature could reasonably condition the right to appeal upon the preservation of a prejudicial error or the assertion of a fundamental error." Amendments, 685 So.2d at 775 . 1998The supreme court has expressed the belief that “the legislature could reasonably condition the right to appeal upon the preservation of a prejudicial error or the assertion of a fundamental error.” Amendments, 685 So.2d at 775 . | 1 | 7 |
Cargle v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“A conviction or sentence may not be reversed absent an express finding that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court.” Cargle v. State, 770 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 2000) (quoting § 924.051(7), Fla. Stat.). 2002In Cargle v. State, 770 So.2d 1151 , 1153— 54 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court held that the preservation provisions of section 924.051 apply to sentencing errors in so-called “hybrid” proceedings in which juveniles are prosecuted and sentenced as adults. | 1 | 2 |
Florida Power & Light Company v. McCollumgreen2 sentences2013Id. (quoting Fla. Power & Light v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569, 569 (Fla.1962)). 2007Furthermore, *349 "[a] `miscarriage of justice' arises where instructions are `reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead' the jury." Goldschmidt, 571 So.2d at 425 (citing Fla. Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla.1962)). | 1 | 2 |
John v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (“The parties cannot by stipulation control questions of law.”); Sigismondi v. State, 380 So. 3d 1208 , 1218 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (“[E]ven where ‘the State has not argued the lack of preservation in an appeal[,] this court has an independent obligation to ensure that an alleged prejudicial error was properly preserved for appellate review.’ Consequently, ‘while this independent obligation does not excuse parties from raising on appeal the issue of whether an alleged error is properly preserved, we will not base a reversal on an u | 1 | 1 |
State v. Castillogreen1 sentence2026A party’s challenge to the exercise of “peremptories must be raised prior to the jury being sworn.” State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565, 565 (Fla. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Melbourne v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (“The parties cannot by stipulation control questions of law.”); Sigismondi v. State, 380 So. 3d 1208 , 1218 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (“[E]ven where ‘the State has not argued the lack of preservation in an appeal[,] this court has an independent obligation to ensure that an alleged prejudicial error was properly preserved for appellate review.’ Consequently, ‘while this independent obligation does not excuse parties from raising on appeal the issue of whether an alleged error is properly preserved, we will not base a reversal on an u | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Munroegreen1 sentence2026See Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (“The parties cannot by stipulation control questions of law.”); Sigismondi v. State, 380 So. 3d 1208 , 1218 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (“[E]ven where ‘the State has not argued the lack of preservation in an appeal[,] this court has an independent obligation to ensure that an alleged prejudicial error was properly preserved for appellate review.’ Consequently, ‘while this independent obligation does not excuse parties from raising on appeal the issue of whether an alleged error is properly preserved, we will not base a reversal on an u | 1 | 1 |
Joseph v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Baxter v. State, 318 So. 3d 601 , 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Where ‘a rational trier of fact could lawfully find that the evidence proved the existence of all the elements of the crime . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.” (quoting Sandhaus v. State, 200 So. 3d 112, 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016))); Senser v. State, 243 So. 3d 1003, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“Trial judges have wide discretion in decisions regarding jury instructions, and the appellate courts will not reverse a decision regarding an inst | 1 | 1 |
State v. Revenelgreen1 sentence2025See Baxter v. State, 318 So. 3d 601 , 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Where ‘a rational trier of fact could lawfully find that the evidence proved the existence of all the elements of the crime . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.” (quoting Sandhaus v. State, 200 So. 3d 112, 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016))); Senser v. State, 243 So. 3d 1003, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“Trial judges have wide discretion in decisions regarding jury instructions, and the appellate courts will not reverse a decision regarding an inst | 1 | 1 |
Talley v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Baxter v. State, 318 So. 3d 601 , 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Where ‘a rational trier of fact could lawfully find that the evidence proved the existence of all the elements of the crime . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.” (quoting Sandhaus v. State, 200 So. 3d 112, 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016))); Senser v. State, 243 So. 3d 1003, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“Trial judges have wide discretion in decisions regarding jury instructions, and the appellate courts will not reverse a decision regarding an inst | 1 | 1 |
Sandhaus v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Baxter v. State, 318 So. 3d 601 , 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Where ‘a rational trier of fact could lawfully find that the evidence proved the existence of all the elements of the crime . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.” (quoting Sandhaus v. State, 200 So. 3d 112, 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016))); Senser v. State, 243 So. 3d 1003, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“Trial judges have wide discretion in decisions regarding jury instructions, and the appellate courts will not reverse a decision regarding an inst | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jeffersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Naderi v. Naderigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Straight v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Orme v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sheena Latson v. State of Floridagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Castor v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jackson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hamiltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kokal v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berman Leasing Co. v. Brumagegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barbour v. Brinker Florida, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lacey v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Giles v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tillman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.green2 sentences1998The supreme court has expressed the belief that "the legislature could reasonably condition the right to appeal upon the preservation of a prejudicial error or the assertion of a fundamental error." Amendments, 685 So.2d at 775 . 1998The supreme court has expressed the belief that “the legislature could reasonably condition the right to appeal upon the preservation of a prejudicial error or the assertion of a fundamental error.” Amendments, 685 So.2d at 775 . | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goldschmidt v. Holman
green
2 sentences2013Id. (quoting Fla. Power & Light v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569, 569 (Fla.1962)). 2007"Prejudicial error requiring a reversal of judgment or a new trial occurs only where `the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.'" Id. ; § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2006). | 4 | 1995–2013 |
Conner v. State
green
2 sentences2026See Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (“The parties cannot by stipulation control questions of law.”); Sigismondi v. State, 380 So. 3d 1208 , 1218 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (“[E]ven where ‘the State has not argued the lack of preservation in an appeal[,] this court has an independent obligation to ensure that an alleged prejudicial error was properly preserved for appellate review.’ Consequently, ‘while this independent obligation does not excuse parties from raising on appeal the issue of whether an alleged error is properly preserved, we will not base a reversal on an u 2024As we have explained, even where "the State has not argued the lack of preservation in [an] appeal . . . this court has an independent obligation to ensure that an alleged prejudicial error was properly preserved for appellate review." Conner v. State, 987 So. 2d 130 , 132 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). | 2 | 2024–2026 |
Roviaro v. United States
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 64- 65. 2002The Court noted that the CI may have thrown doubt on the defendant's identity, among other issues, and explained that "[t]he desirability of calling [the informant] as a witness, or at least interviewing him in preparation for trial, was a matter for the accused rather than the Government to decide." 353 U.S. at 64 , 77 S.Ct. 623 . | 2 | 2002–2023 |
Kotteakos v. United States
green
2 sentences1999As the United States Supreme Court observed in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), harmless error statutes were adopted by the states, as well as Congress, in the early part of this century, as a reaction to widespread dissatisfaction with appellate courts routinely reversing criminal convictions. 1999As the United States Supreme Court observed in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), harmless error statutes were adopted by the states, as well as Congress, in the early part of this century, as a reaction to widespread dissatisfaction with appellate courts routinely reversing criminal convictions. | 2 | 1998–1999 |
| Larkins v. State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Young v. State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State of Florida v. Adrea Vernique Wiley green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Hains v. Hains green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Tapanes v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Roberts green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Harvey v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Brannon v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Collins Fruit Company v. Giglio green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Maddox v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Lightfoot v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Mason v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Chapman v. California red | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Callaway green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Levin v. Hanks green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Theard v. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Food Fair, Inc. v. Anderson green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Crawford v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.