81 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1885–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sparling v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2015The issuance of a driver’s license “is no more than a personal privilege[.]” Sparling v. Director of Revenue, 52 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Mo.App.2001). 2012“Issuance of a driver’s license is no more than a personal privilege; however, once granted, the license may not be revoked arbitrarily but only in the manner and on the grounds provided by law.” Sparling v. Dir. of Revenue, 52 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Mo.App. | 4 | 4 |
Dine v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025Dine v. Williams, 830 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992).2 An expert witness's opinion must have a rational basis and be founded on substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation. 2000Dine v. Williams, 830 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo.App.1992). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. James H. Herzoggreen2 sentences2015See also U.S. v. Herzog, 644 F.2d 713, 716 (8th Cir.1981) (double jeopardy is a personal defense and not jurisdictional). 2015See also U.S. v. Herzog, 644 F.2d 713, 716 (8th Cir. 1981) (double jeopardy is a personal defense and not jurisdictional). | 3 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Marlo v. Hessgreen2 sentences1987Marlo v. Hess, 669 S.W.2d 291, 294 (Mo.App.1984), that “an action may be entertained by a Circuit Court having jurisdiction of the subject matter where the parties have contractually agreed to waive the personal privilege of venue and where such agreement is neither unfair nor unreasonable.” To permit marriages to be dissolved through improper venue, unless there is a knowing and intelligent waiver of the venue, would be against public policy. 1985Mario v. Hess, 669 S.W.2d 291, 294 [6, 7] (Mo.App.1984), the court held that an action may be entertained in a circuit court having jurisdiction of the subject matter when the parties have contractually agreed to waive the personal privilege of venue and where such provision is neither unfair or unreasonable. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Woodgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., State v. Wood, 596 S.W.2d 394, 401 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. Leigh, 423 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Mo. 1968); Skaggs v. State, 754 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Mo. App. 1988). 1986In State v. Wood, 596 S.W.2d 394, 401 (Mo. banc 1980), the supreme court held that a defendant may waive the issue of venue by proceeding to trial without objection. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nehergreen2 sentences2015Nevertheless, the Missouri Supreme Court has held: “A guilty plea does not waive a subsequent claim of a double- jeopardy violation if it can be.determined.from the face of the record that the sentencing court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence.” State v. Neher, 213 S.W.3d 44, 48 (Mo. banc 2007). 2015Nevertheless, the Missouri Supreme Court has held: “A guilty plea does not waive a subsequent claim of a double jeopardy violation if it can be determined from the face of the record that the sentencing court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence.” State_v. Neher, 213 S.W.3d 44, 48 (Mo. banc 2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dunngreen2 sentences2002“This is because a claim of double jeopardy is a personal privilege that is waived if not raised at the proper time.” State v. Dunn, 7 S.W.3d 427, 430 (Mo.App.1999). 2001State v. Dunn, 7 S.W.3d 427, 430 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Knierim v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2001Knierim v. James, 677 S.W.2d 322, 324-25 (Mo.banc 1984). 1994Knierim v. James, 677 S.W.2d 322, 324-25 [2] (Mo. banc 1984). | 2 | 2 |
Blydenburg v. Davidgreen2 sentences1993Blydenburg v. David, 413 S.W.2d 284, 289 (Mo. banc 1967); City of St. 1993Blydenburg v. David, 413 S.W.2d 284, 289 (Mo. banc 1967); City of St. | 2 | 2 |
Marriage of Norman v. Normangreen2 sentences1993Norman v. Norman, 604 S.W.2d 680, 681 (Mo.App.1980). 1990Norman v. Norman, 604 S.W.2d 680, 681 (Mo.App.1980). | 2 | 2 |
Bellis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1982The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 , 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. 1982The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 , 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. | 2 | 2 |
Couch v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1982The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 , 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. 1982The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 , 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Lambert v. Flynngreen2 sentences2006Subject matter jurisdiction is “derived from the law and cannot be conferred by consent,” Flynn, 154 S.W.2d at 57 , while personal jurisdiction “may be waived because it is a personal privilege.” Id. 2006Subject matter jurisdiction is “derived from the law and cannot be conferred by consent,” Flynn, 154 S.W.2d at 57 , while personal jurisdiction “may be waived because it is a personal privilege.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Ballard v. Ryangreen2 sentences1992OIS could waive venue as to itself, but because venue is a personal privilege, Ballard v. Ryan, 646 S.W.2d 398 (Mo.App.1983), OIS’s waiver could not make venue proper as to ASD. 1984Ballard v. Ryan, 646 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Conwaygreen2 sentences1966State v. Denison, 352 Mo. 572 , 178 S.W.2d 449, 455 [13, 14], In State v. Conway, 348 Mo. 580 , 154 S.W.2d 128, 134 [14], the concept was stated, “ * * * [T]he privilege against self-incrimination is a part of the Bill of Rights, a personal privilege, guaranteed by the Constitution in unambiguous language; and the statutory protection against comment, by court or counsel, is a plain legislative mandate, the underlying policy of which is and was for the draftsmen of the acts and not the courts.” Even when it is requested by defendant, as here, this court has long held that it is not error to re 1966State v. Denison, 352 Mo. 572 , 178 S.W.2d 449, 455 [13, 14], In State v. Conway, 348 Mo. 580 , 154 S.W.2d 128, 134 [14], the concept was stated, “ * * * [T]he privilege against self-incrimination is a part of the Bill of Rights, a personal privilege, guaranteed by the Constitution in unambiguous language; and the statutory protection against comment, by court or counsel, is a plain legislative mandate, the underlying policy of which is and was for the draftsmen of the acts and not the courts.” Even when it is requested by defendant, as here, this court has long held that it is not error to re | 1 | 2 |
State v. Leighgreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., State v. Wood, 596 S.W.2d 394, 401 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. Leigh, 423 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Mo. 1968); Skaggs v. State, 754 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Mo. App. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Skaggs v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., State v. Wood, 596 S.W.2d 394, 401 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. Leigh, 423 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Mo. 1968); Skaggs v. State, 754 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Mo. App. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. Hartwiggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Toddgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Elliottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hagan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rosendahlgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gavergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Laws v. Higginsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rumbolo v. Phelpsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sullenger v. Cooke Sales & Service Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Silman v. Director of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gibson v. Gibsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of St. Louis v. Mosiergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mercantile Trust Co. National Ass'n v. Mosbygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fay v. Noiared | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Longgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Denisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Phillipsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Perkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Westgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rutledgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Aubuchongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goodman v. Griffithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Osborne v. Schutt
neutral
2 sentences1911Co., 83 Mo. App. 498 , l. c. 501, and cases cited; Betterton v. O’Dwyer, 124 Mo. App. 306 , l. c. 316, 101 S. W. 628 .] In Osborne v. Schutt, 67 Mo. 712 , and Hombs v. Corbin, 20 Mo. App. 497 , it is held that tbe debtor’s right to exemption is a personal privilege belonging to the debtor which he may or may not claim; it is a personal privilege to be exercised when the officer calls with the writ or makes a levy, and then only for the benefit of the claimant and not for the benefit of another. [Garrett v. Wagner, 125 Mo. 450 , l. c. 462, 28 S. W. 762 .] In the case of Hombs v. Corbin, snpra, 1909Be this as it may, the right of exemption is a personal privilege which the debtor may waive if he chooses to do so. [Osborne v. Schutt, 67 Mo. 712 ; Holmes v. Corbin, 20 Mo. App. 497 ; Stotesbury v. Curtland, 35 Mo. App. 148, 155 .] By asserting his right of election under section 3162 to take $300 worth of other property in lieu of that rendered absolutely exempt in the first and second subdivisions of section 3159, plaintiff waived his right to claim the two horses and two cows referred to as exempt under the provisions of sec tion 3159. | 4 | 1885–1911 |
State v. Douglass
neutral
2 sentences1914“It is everywhere ruled that this is a personal privilege which one may waive and must be held to have waived when he voluntarily answers without objecting that it would incriminate him:” [State v. Faulker, 185 Mo. 673, 695 ; State v. Douglas, 1 Mo. 527 .] But defendant contends the evidence was not admissible under the Constitution providing that no one shall be compelled to incriminate themselves, or be called upon, to give evidence against themselves. 1905In this case he made no claim of privilege, and it is everywhere ruled that this is a personal privilege which he may waive and must be held to have waived when he voluntarily answers without objecting to it that it would incriminate him. [State v. Douglass, 1 Mo. 527 , and cases cited.]” It is next urged in the plea, that the indictment in this cause was presented without having any testimony upon which to base the finding. | 3 | 1903–1914 |
Garrett v. Wagner
green
2 sentences1911Co., 83 Mo. App. 498 , l. c. 501, and cases cited; Betterton v. O’Dwyer, 124 Mo. App. 306 , l. c. 316, 101 S. W. 628 .] In Osborne v. Schutt, 67 Mo. 712 , and Hombs v. Corbin, 20 Mo. App. 497 , it is held that tbe debtor’s right to exemption is a personal privilege belonging to the debtor which he may or may not claim; it is a personal privilege to be exercised when the officer calls with the writ or makes a levy, and then only for the benefit of the claimant and not for the benefit of another. [Garrett v. Wagner, 125 Mo. 450 , l. c. 462, 28 S. W. 762 .] In the case of Hombs v. Corbin, snpra, 1911Co., 83 Mo. App. 498 , l. c. 501, and cases cited; Betterton v. O’Dwyer, 124 Mo. App. 306 , l. c. 316, 101 S. W. 628 .] In Osborne v. Schutt, 67 Mo. 712 , and Hombs v. Corbin, 20 Mo. App. 497 , it is held that tbe debtor’s right to exemption is a personal privilege belonging to the debtor which he may or may not claim; it is a personal privilege to be exercised when the officer calls with the writ or makes a levy, and then only for the benefit of the claimant and not for the benefit of another. [Garrett v. Wagner, 125 Mo. 450 , l. c. 462, 28 S. W. 762 .] In the case of Hombs v. Corbin, snpra, | 3 | 1898–1911 |
Wilson v. United States
green
2 sentences1982The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [ Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [ Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [ Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [ United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 , 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. 1982The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 , 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. | 2 | 1980–1982 |
United States v. White
green
2 sentences1982The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 , 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. 1982The Fifth Amendment grants a personal privilege: it protects a born person [Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 [6-8], 93 S.Ct. 611, 615 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973)] not an artificial person such as a corporation [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911)] or a partnership or the component partners [Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 [3-5], 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182 , 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)], or an individual who holds the records as custodian [United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 , 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944)]. | 2 | 1980–1982 |
McKinney v. Grand Street, Prospect Park & Flatbush Railroad
green
2 sentences1914After the information has once been made public no further injury can he inflicted upon such rights and interests of the patient as the statute was intended to protect, by its repetition at another time or by another person.’ “In McKinney v. Railroad, 104 N. Y. 352 , the reasons for the application of the doctrine of waiver of a personal privilege were very clearly announced. 1906After the information has once been made public no further injury can be inflicted upon such rights and interests of the patient as the statute was intended to protect, by. its repetition at another time or by another person.” In McKinney v. Railroad, 104 N. Y. 352 , the reasons for the application of the doctrine of waiver of a personal privilege were very clearly announced. | 2 | 1906–1914 |
Homes v. Corbin
neutral
2 sentences1911Co., 83 Mo. App. 498 , l. c. 501, and cases cited; Betterton v. O’Dwyer, 124 Mo. App. 306 , l. c. 316, 101 S. W. 628 .] In Osborne v. Schutt, 67 Mo. 712 , and Hombs v. Corbin, 20 Mo. App. 497 , it is held that tbe debtor’s right to exemption is a personal privilege belonging to the debtor which he may or may not claim; it is a personal privilege to be exercised when the officer calls with the writ or makes a levy, and then only for the benefit of the claimant and not for the benefit of another. [Garrett v. Wagner, 125 Mo. 450 , l. c. 462, 28 S. W. 762 .] In the case of Hombs v. Corbin, snpra, 1909Be this as it may, the right of exemption is a personal privilege which the debtor may waive if he chooses to do so. [Osborne v. Schutt, 67 Mo. 712 ; Holmes v. Corbin, 20 Mo. App. 497 ; Stotesbury v. Curtland, 35 Mo. App. 148, 155 .] By asserting his right of election under section 3162 to take $300 worth of other property in lieu of that rendered absolutely exempt in the first and second subdivisions of section 3159, plaintiff waived his right to claim the two horses and two cows referred to as exempt under the provisions of sec tion 3159. | 2 | 1909–1911 |
State Ex Rel. St. Francois County School District R—III v. Lalumondier
green
1 sentence2024Id. 10 At the timeLalumondier was decided this provision appeared in section 22, article V of the Missouri Constitution. 16 Lalumondier did not hold that public entities are not "persons" with standing to pursue judicial review under section 536.150 as a matter of law. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2019"Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant's personal waiver are the rights 'to plead guilty, waive a jury ... or take an appeal.' " Commonwealth v. Simmons, 394 S.W.3d 903 , 912 (Ky. 2013) (quoting Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 , 251, 128 S.Ct. 1765 , 170 L.Ed.2d 616 (2008) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Gonzales v. United States
green
2 sentences2019"Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant's personal waiver are the rights 'to plead guilty, waive a jury ... or take an appeal.' " Commonwealth v. Simmons, 394 S.W.3d 903 , 912 (Ky. 2013) (quoting Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 , 251, 128 S.Ct. 1765 , 170 L.Ed.2d 616 (2008) ). 2019"Among the rights recognized as requiring the defendant's personal waiver are the rights 'to plead guilty, waive a jury ... or take an appeal.' " Commonwealth v. Simmons, 394 S.W.3d 903 , 912 (Ky. 2013) (quoting Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 , 251, 128 S.Ct. 1765 , 170 L.Ed.2d 616 (2008) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Jordan v. St. John's Mercy Medical Center green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Webster Groves v. Kellett
green
1 sentence2018It is well-settled that a driver's license is not a vested right, but rather "no more than a personal privilege." Vandewiele v. Dir. of Revenue , 292 S.W.3d 397 , 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (quoting Smyser v. Dir. of Revenue , 942 S.W.2d 380 , 382 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Vandewiele v. Director of Revenue
neutral
1 sentence2018It is well-settled that a driver's license is not a vested right, but rather "no more than a personal privilege." Vandewiele v. Dir. of Revenue , 292 S.W.3d 397 , 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (quoting Smyser v. Dir. of Revenue , 942 S.W.2d 380 , 382 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Kansas City v. Jordan
green
1 sentence2018The police power of a state is "the power of the legislature to make such regulations relating to personal and property rights as appertain to the public health, the public safety, and the public morals." Damon v. City of Kansas City , 419 S.W.3d 162 , 184 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting City of Kansas City v. Jordan , 174 S.W.3d 25 , 40 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Roach v. Hart green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Wernke v. Miller green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Baker v. Commissioner green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Johnson v. United States green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Simmons v. Friday green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State ex rel. Realty Consultants, Inc. v. Dowd green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Gershman Investment Corp. v. Duckett Creek Sewer District green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State ex rel. Teasley v. Sanders green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State ex rel. Falcone v. Levitt green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| United States v. Broce green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| First Nat. Bank of Charlotte v. Morgan green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Reynolds green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Ex Parte Dixon green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Harper green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Paglino green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Owen v. Smith green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| R___ v. R___ green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Hutchinson v. Steinke green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Beall v. Farmers' Exchange Bank of Gallatin (Mo. 1934) green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Suspension of Operator's License of Levin v. Carpenter green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Robinson v. Field green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Forbes v. Snow green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Pope v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Hungate v. Hudson green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Ewald v. Lane green | 1 | 1942–1942 |
| Houston v. Wilhite green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.