state of mind exception in Colorado

11 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Haymakergreen colo · 1986 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025 2 sentences 2025And under these circumstances , we perceive no abuse of discretion in the trial court 's admission of these statements under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. [7] See CRE 803 (3) ; People v. Haymaker , 716 P.2d 110 , 113 n.3 ( Colo. 1986 ) . b. 2025And under these circumstances, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of these statements under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. [7] See CRE 803(3); People v. Haymaker , 716 P.2d 110, 113 n.3 (Colo. 1986). b.	1	2
Shepard v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1933 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1981–1986 2 sentences 1986See generally Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 , 54 S.Ct. 22 , 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933); People v. Madson, 638 P.2d 18 (Colo.1981). 1986See generally Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 , 54 S.Ct. 22 , 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933); People v. Madson, 638 P.2d 18 (Colo.1981).	1	2
People v. Daileygreen colo · 1982 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025See Dailey, 639 P.2d at 1076 ; Reed, 56 P.3d at 100 . ¶ 33 For similar reasons, we reject Johnson’s contention that requiring a plaintiff to prove state of mind to show a constitutional violation renders section 13-21-131(4)(a) a nullity.	1	1
v. Centura Health Corporationgreen coloctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025See Garcia v. Centura Health Corp., 2020 COA 38, ¶ 45 (out-of-state cases are not binding precedent on this court). ¶ 32 Next, Johnson contends that we should not impose a state-of- mind requirement where section 13-21-131 has none.	1	1
People v. Cardenasgreen coloctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011See People v. Haymaker, 716 P.2d 110, 113-14 (Colo.1986) (the victim's hearsay statements were admissible under the state of mind exception because they were relevant to the issue of whether she consented to sexual intercourse with the defendant); People v. Welsh, 176 P.3d 781, 790 (Colo.App.2007) hearsay statement of a vietim is admissible if the victim's state of mind is relevant to a disputed issue in the case."); People v. Cardenas, 25 P.3d 1258, 1263 (Colo.App.2000) (the victim's hearsay statement that she was afraid of the defendant was admissible under the state of mind exception becaus	1	1
People v. Welshgreen coloctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011See People v. Haymaker, 716 P.2d 110, 113-14 (Colo.1986) (the victim's hearsay statements were admissible under the state of mind exception because they were relevant to the issue of whether she consented to sexual intercourse with the defendant); People v. Welsh, 176 P.3d 781, 790 (Colo.App.2007) hearsay statement of a vietim is admissible if the victim's state of mind is relevant to a disputed issue in the case."); People v. Cardenas, 25 P.3d 1258, 1263 (Colo.App.2000) (the victim's hearsay statement that she was afraid of the defendant was admissible under the state of mind exception becaus	1	1
Welch v. Sirmonsgreen ca10 · 2006 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	1
United States v. Roland W. Browngreen cadc · 1974 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981See, e.g., United States v. Kaplan, 510 F.2d 606 (2d Cir. 1974); United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758 (D.C.Cir.1973); People v. Lew, supra; People v. Hamilton, 55 Cal.2d 881 , 362 P.2d 473 , 13 Cal.Rptr. 649 (1961); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979); People v. White, 401 Mich. 482 , 257 N.W.2d 912 (1977); State v. Parr, 93 Wash.2d 95 , 606 P.2d 263 (1980). 1981See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758 (D.C.Cir.1973); Note, State of Mind: The Elusive Exception, 9 U. of Cal., Davis L.Rev. 199 (1976).	1	1
United States v. Samuel Kaplangreen ca2 · 1974 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (37)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Reed green colo · 2002 1 sentence 2025See Dailey, 639 P.2d at 1076 ; Reed, 56 P.3d at 100 . ¶ 33 For similar reasons, we reject Johnson’s contention that requiring a plaintiff to prove state of mind to show a constitutional violation renders section 13-21-131(4)(a) a nullity.	1	2025–2025
People v. Ujaama green coloctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2013Id. ¶ 25 The state of mind exception provides that "[a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind ... (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health)" is not excluded by the hearsay rule.	1	2013–2013
People v. Franklin green coloctapp · 1989 1 sentence 2013CRE 803(3) ; People v. Franklin, 782 P.2d 1202 , 1206 (Colo.App.1989) ("assertions about the declarant's state of mind are admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted"). ¶ 26 Here, defendant was the declarant.	1	2013–2013
Moore v. Reynolds green ca10 · 1998 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
Horton v. Allen green ca1 · 2004 2 sentences 2006Horton v. Allen, supra, 370 F.3d at 85 (citing Mut. 2006Horton v. Allen, supra, 370 F.3d at 85 .	1	2006–2006
Commonwealth v. Collins green pa · 2005 2 sentences 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
Wyatt v. State green alaska · 1999 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
State v. Terrovona green wash · 1986 2 sentences 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
Michael Lenza v. Donald W. Wyrick, Warden Attorney General of the State of Missouri green ca8 · 1981 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
James Barber v. Charles Scully, Superintendent, Greenhaven Correctional Facility green ca2 · 1984 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
State v. Leonard green lactapp · 2005 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
State v. Jackson green wisctapp · 1994 2 sentences 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
James Richard Terrovona v. Larry Kincheloe green ca9 · 1988 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
State v. Jones green ncctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
John Francis Hayes v. Michael York, Warden green ca4 · 2002 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
State v. Wood green ariz · 1994 2 sentences 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
State v. Smith green conn · 2005 2 sentences 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
Reyes v. State green del · 2003 1 sentence 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
Hodges v. Com. green va · 2006 2 sentences 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
People v. Waidla green cal · 2000 2 sentences 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v 2006See Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir.2006) (conclusion that state of mind is firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule under Roberts is not unreasonable or contrary to Supreme Court authority); Hayes v. York, 311 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2002); Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that state of mind exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the reliability requirement of Roberts ); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1988); Barber v. Scully, 731 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir.1984); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804 (8th Cir.1981); Wyatt v. State, 981 P.2d 109 (Alaska 1999); State v	1	2006–2006
Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel green colo · 1993 1 sentence 1995Rather, relying on C.R.C.P. 11, § 13-17-202(3), and Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel, 848 P.2d 942 (Colo.1993), plaintiff argued that the state of mind of defense counsel and that of defense counsel’s staff were irrelevant in light of the unambiguous offer, that § 13-17-202 does not authorize post facto revision of an offer of settlement, and that the offer was irrevocable for the statutory ten-day period.	1	1995–1995
People v. Madson green colo · 1981 1 sentence 1986See generally Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 , 54 S.Ct. 22 , 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933); People v. Madson, 638 P.2d 18 (Colo.1981).	1	1986–1986
Mutual Life Insurance v. Hillmon green · 1892	1	1981–1981
State v. Kump green wyo · 1956	1	1981–1981
State v. Parr green wash · 1980	1	1981–1981
State v. Fowler green iowa · 1976	1	1981–1981
People v. White green mich · 1977	1	1981–1981
People v. Hamilton green cal · 1961	1	1981–1981
People v. Purvis green cal · 1961	1	1981–1981
Deane Buick Company v. Kendall green colo · 1966	1	1981–1981
T. G. Motors, Inc. v. Jackson green scotus · 1979	1	1981–1981
Fowler v. Iowa green scotus · 1979	1	1981–1981
American Service Corp. v. United States green scotus · 1979	1	1981–1981
People v. Lazare neutral colo · 1975	1	1980–1980
Russell v. First Am. Mtg. Co. green coloctapp · 1977	1	1978–1978
Betts v. Betts green washctapp · 1970	1	1975–1975
People v. Burress green colo · 1973	1	1975–1975

Where else courts name it

CA 78 (1968–2026) PA 64 (1971–2026) IL 50 (1976–2025) NY 37 (1983–2024) MA 37 (1982–2025) NC 32 (1977–2016) FL 28 (1984–2025) TX 26 (1971–2024) DC 24 (1978–2023) MO 23 (1983–2025) CT 23 (1980–2020) OH 23 (1993–2025) VA 22 (1989–2025) MD 17 (1981–2024) TN 16 (1994–2019) NJ 16 (1988–2024) IN 14 (1984–2020) WA 12 (1980–2022) CO 11 (1975–2025) OR 11 (1984–2025) AZ 10 (1981–2021) LA 10 (1980–2019) NV 9 (1980–2025) KY 9 (1991–2026) HI 9 (1982–2026) MI 8 (1971–2016) MN 8 (2014–2026) DE 8 (1991–2026) OK 8 (1996–2018) AL 7 (1989–2010) NM 7 (1983–2022) ID 6 (1969–2022) UT 5 (1980–2015) WI 5 (1984–2003) IA 4 (1995–2022) SC 4 (1999–2011) KS 3 (2001–2018) ND 3 (2011–2014) NE 3 (1992–1997) GA 2 (2011–2024) AK 2 (1994–2005) WY 2 (1992–2011) MS 2 (1977–2000)

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