protection privilege in Nebraska

11 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1899–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nebraska 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 (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. LeDentgreen neb · 1970 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	1
State v. Veimangreen neb · 1996 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See, also, State v. Veiman, 249 Neb. 875 , 546 N.W.2d 785 (1996). 1996See, also, State v. Veiman, 249 Neb. 875 , 546 N.W.2d 785 (1996).	1	1
United States v. Robert L. Herring, and Jerry D. Dormineygreen ca5 · 1979 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982See, United States v. Herring, 602 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Moss, 562 F.2d 155 (2nd Cir. 1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 914 , 98 S. Ct. 1467 , 55 L.	1	1
Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Wallinggreen scotus · 1946 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 1 sentence 1981Id. at 208.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (31)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Oldson green neb · 2016 1 sentence 2016Supp. 2014), may - 720 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 prevent the admission of other acts evidence for propensity purposes as a protection of the presumption of innocence, it does not follow that the State violates due process by adducing testimony that could result in the revelation of other acts if the defense chooses to pursue certain lines of questioning on cross-examination. 20.	1	2016–2016
United States v. Shanta A. Howell, and George T. Howell, III green ca7 · 1994 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Kieffer green ca8 · 2010 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Schafer green ca9 · 2010 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Sousa green ca1 · 2006 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Theunick green ca6 · 2011 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Anthony L. Austin green ca8 · 1990 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Levin green ca6 · 1992 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elton Lee FUNCHES, Defendant-Appellant green ca11 · 1998 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Richard Lynn Pitt, in No. 98-7383 United States of America v. William Michael Strube, Also Known as Mike Strube, in No. 98-7497 green ca3 · 1999 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
State v. Barr green ncctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
cluster 782290 green ca4 · 2003 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
People v. Bradley green calctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. James H. Giffen green ca2 · 2006 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Bader green ca10 · 2012 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. Orlando Hale green ca5 · 2012 1 sentence 2013The Court held that a state court’s affirmance of the convictions violated due process and that permitting the convictions to stand “would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State—convicting 15 State v. LeDent, 185 Neb. 380, 383 , 176 N.W.2d 21, 23 (1970). 16 See, e.g., U.S. v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 4	1	2013–2013
United States v. George Moss and American Identification Products green ca2 · 1977 1 sentence 1982See, United States v. Herring, 602 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Moss, 562 F.2d 155 (2nd Cir. 1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 914 , 98 S. Ct. 1467 , 55 L.	1	1982–1982
Wegner v. United States green scotus · 1978 1 sentence 1982See, United States v. Herring, 602 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Moss, 562 F.2d 155 (2nd Cir. 1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 914 , 98 S. Ct. 1467 , 55 L.	1	1982–1982
Moss v. United States green scotus · 1978 1 sentence 1982See, United States v. Herring, 602 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Moss, 562 F.2d 155 (2nd Cir. 1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 914 , 98 S. Ct. 1467 , 55 L.	1	1982–1982
Boyd v. United States red scotus · 1886 1 sentence 1972Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 .	1	1972–1972
Ritter v. Drainage District No. 1 neutral neb · 1940 2 sentences 1958In Ritter v. Drainage District, 137 Neb. 866 , 291 N. W. 718 , this court held: “Where contractual and vested rights are created pursuant to statute, they cannot be 483 destroyed by a subsequent act of the legislature.” The court also said: “ ‘It has become the established law that a legislative enactment, in the ordinary form of a statute, may contain provisions which, when accepted as the basis of action by individuals or corporations, become contracts between them and the state within the protection of the clause of the federal Constitution forbidding impairment of contractual obligations. 1958In Ritter v. Drainage District, 137 Neb. 866 , 291 N. W. 718 , this court held: “Where contractual and vested rights are created pursuant to statute, they cannot be 483 destroyed by a subsequent act of the legislature.” The court also said: “ ‘It has become the established law that a legislative enactment, in the ordinary form of a statute, may contain provisions which, when accepted as the basis of action by individuals or corporations, become contracts between them and the state within the protection of the clause of the federal Constitution forbidding impairment of contractual obligations.	1	1958–1958
McCarter v. Cover green neb · 1932 2 sentences 1939Miller v. Banner County, 127 Neb. 690 , 256 N. W. 639 ; American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co., 124 Neb. 874 , 248 N. W. 697 ; McCarter v. Cover, 122 Neb. 691 , 241 N. W. 525 ; Hartford v. Pinnie, 128 Neb. 771 , 260 N. W. 371 . 1939Miller v. Banner County, 127 Neb. 690 , 256 N. W. 639 ; American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co., 124 Neb. 874 , 248 N. W. 697 ; McCarter v. Cover, 122 Neb. 691 , 241 N. W. 525 ; Hartford v. Pinnie, 128 Neb. 771 , 260 N. W. 371 .	1	1939–1939
American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co. neutral neb · 1933 2 sentences 1939Miller v. Banner County, 127 Neb. 690 , 256 N. W. 639 ; American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co., 124 Neb. 874 , 248 N. W. 697 ; McCarter v. Cover, 122 Neb. 691 , 241 N. W. 525 ; Hartford v. Pinnie, 128 Neb. 771 , 260 N. W. 371 . 1939Miller v. Banner County, 127 Neb. 690 , 256 N. W. 639 ; American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co., 124 Neb. 874 , 248 N. W. 697 ; McCarter v. Cover, 122 Neb. 691 , 241 N. W. 525 ; Hartford v. Pinnie, 128 Neb. 771 , 260 N. W. 371 .	1	1939–1939
Hartford v. Pinnie neutral neb · 1935 2 sentences 1939Miller v. Banner County, 127 Neb. 690 , 256 N. W. 639 ; American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co., 124 Neb. 874 , 248 N. W. 697 ; McCarter v. Cover, 122 Neb. 691 , 241 N. W. 525 ; Hartford v. Pinnie, 128 Neb. 771 , 260 N. W. 371 . 1939Miller v. Banner County, 127 Neb. 690 , 256 N. W. 639 ; American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co., 124 Neb. 874 , 248 N. W. 697 ; McCarter v. Cover, 122 Neb. 691 , 241 N. W. 525 ; Hartford v. Pinnie, 128 Neb. 771 , 260 N. W. 371 .	1	1939–1939
Miller v. Banner County green neb · 1934 2 sentences 1939Miller v. Banner County, 127 Neb. 690 , 256 N. W. 639 ; American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co., 124 Neb. 874 , 248 N. W. 697 ; McCarter v. Cover, 122 Neb. 691 , 241 N. W. 525 ; Hartford v. Pinnie, 128 Neb. 771 , 260 N. W. 371 . 1939Miller v. Banner County, 127 Neb. 690 , 256 N. W. 639 ; American Surety Co. v. First Trust Co., 124 Neb. 874 , 248 N. W. 697 ; McCarter v. Cover, 122 Neb. 691 , 241 N. W. 525 ; Hartford v. Pinnie, 128 Neb. 771 , 260 N. W. 371 .	1	1939–1939
Eddy v. City of Omaha green neb · 1904 1 sentence 1910The plaintiff, in support of his appeal, argues that since the defendant, subsequent to the levy of the taxes in dispute, conveyed the land by a deed which excepted those taxes, and thereafter received title to the real estate by a deed which also excepted all taxes, he is within the rule announced in Eddy v. City of Omaha, 72 Neb. 550 .	1	1910–1910
Agnew v. City of Pawnee City green neb · 1907	1	1910–1910
State v. Several Parcels of Land green neb · 1907	1	1910–1910
Betts v. Sims neutral · 1892	1	1899–1899
Matteson v. Thomas green ill · 1866	1	1899–1899
Jones v. French neutral ind · 1883	1	1899–1899

Where else courts name it

CA 107 (1881–2026) NY 99 (1840–2026) PA 60 (1853–2026) IL 52 (1873–2024) TX 48 (1885–2025) AL 44 (1866–2018) NJ 40 (1830–2026) IN 37 (1872–2024) CT 34 (1920–2023) MD 32 (1878–2014) NC 29 (1891–2025) VA 28 (1919–2024) WA 27 (1912–2026) FL 26 (1917–2020) WI 26 (1888–2018) MO 25 (1889–2024) MA 21 (1869–2025) MN 21 (1925–2025) DC 20 (1972–2025) OH 19 (1907–2024) OR 18 (1875–2020) LA 17 (1940–2008) KS 16 (1913–2005) AZ 15 (1965–2017) KY 15 (1916–2021) MI 15 (1963–2022) DE 14 (1952–2022) NM 14 (1964–2023) SD 13 (1972–2015) GA 13 (1884–2019) CO 13 (1927–2025) AK 12 (1972–2025) OK 12 (1912–2016) IA 12 (1922–2022) NE 11 (1899–2016) SC 11 (1884–2025) ND 11 (1897–2023) WV 10 (1875–2019) MS 9 (1970–2017) AR 9 (1882–2012) ME 9 (1984–2017) TN 8 (1953–2024) WY 8 (1923–2021) ID 7 (1971–2020) RI 6 (1962–2007) VT 5 (1920–1996) NH 5 (1981–2021) HI 5 (1947–2008) NV 4 (1923–2020) UT 4 (1922–2020) MT 4 (1977–1999) PR 3 (1953–1969)

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