Blockburger test in Oklahoma

11 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Missouri v. Huntergreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 5 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1992–2024 2 sentences 2024And, equally important, there is legislative intent to provide for two punishments in this instance. "[T]he Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction that does not apply '[w]here, as here, a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the "same" conduct under Blockburger [.]'" Knapper v. State , 2020 OK CR 16, ¶ 93 , 473 P.3d 1053, 1081 (quoting Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359, 368 (1983)). 2024And, equally important, there is legislative intent to provide for two punishments in this instance. "[T]he Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction that does not apply '[w]here, as here, a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the "same" conduct under Blockburger [.]'" Knapper v. State , 2020 OK CR 16, ¶ 93, 473 P.3d 1053, 1081 (quoting Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359, 368 (1983)).	2	5
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1931 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1982–2020 2 sentences 2020Title 21 O.S.2011, § 856(F)(5) includes the crime of first degree murder as a "gang-related offense." ¶93 Typically we apply the Blockburger test to determine "whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Blockburger , 284 U.S. at 304. 2020Title 21 O.S.2011, § 856(F)(5) includes the crime of first degree murder as a "gang-related offense." ¶93 Typically we apply the Blockburger test to determine "whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Blockburger , 284 U.S. at 304.	1	2
KNAPPER v. STATEgreen oklacrimapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024And, equally important, there is legislative intent to provide for two punishments in this instance. "[T]he Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction that does not apply '[w]here, as here, a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the "same" conduct under Blockburger [.]'" Knapper v. State , 2020 OK CR 16, ¶ 93, 473 P.3d 1053, 1081 (quoting Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359, 368 (1983)). 2024And, equally important, there is legislative intent to provide for two punishments in this instance. "[T]he Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction that does not apply '[w]here, as here, a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the "same" conduct under Blockburger [.]'" Knapper v. State , 2020 OK CR 16, ¶ 93, 473 P.3d 1053, 1081 (quoting Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359, 368 (1983)).	1	1
Logsdon v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024It is obvious to any casual observer that Posey is not being punished twice for Amy's murder in this case, but rather for the two distinct murders he committed. ¶15 Oklahoma generally applies the Blockburger test to evaluate constitutional double jeopardy claims. 15 Logsdon v. State, 2010 OK CR 7, ¶ 19, 231 P.3d 1156, 1165. 2024It is obvious to any casual observer that Posey is not being punished twice for Amy's murder in this case, but rather for the two distinct murders he committed. ¶15 Oklahoma generally applies the Blockburger test to evaluate constitutional double jeopardy claims. 15 Logsdon v. State, 2010 OK CR 7, ¶ 19, 231 P.3d 1156, 1165.	1	1
Cohee v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part). 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part).	1	1
Thompson v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 2 sentences 1990In Thompson v. State, 748 P.2d 526, 528 (Okl.Cr.1988), we held: The Supreme Court has further clarified this test by holding that “[i]f each [statutory provision] requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, not withstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.” We find that the test supplied by the Supreme Court in Blockburger answers the question at hand. 1990In Thompson v. State, 748 P.2d 526, 528 (Okl.Cr.1988), we held: The Supreme Court has further clarified this test by holding that “[i]f each [statutory provision] requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, not withstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.” We find that the test supplied by the Supreme Court in Blockburger answers the question at hand.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Albernaz v. United States green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 1999In Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), the United States Supreme Court stated "[t]he Blockburger test is a `rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent." In Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), the Supreme Court said: "Where, as here, a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regard 1999In Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), the United States Supreme Court stated "[t]he Blockburger test is a `rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent." In Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), the Supreme Court said: "Where, as here, a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regard	2	1995–1999
Brown v. Ohio green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 1988The Supreme Court has further clarified this test by holding that "[i]f each [statutory provision] requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes." Brown v. Ohio, 431 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). 1988The Supreme Court has further clarified this test by holding that "[i]f each [statutory provision] requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes." Brown v. Ohio, 431 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977).	2	1988–1992
Watts v. State green oklacrimapp · 2008 2 sentences 2010Watts, 2008 OK CR 27, ¶ 16 , 194 P.3d at 139-40 . 2010Watts, 2008 OK CR 27, ¶ 16 , 194 P.3d at 139-40 .	1	2010–2010
Hale v. State green oklacrimapp · 1995 2 sentences 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part). 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part).	1	1999–1999
Krishnamurthy v. Nimmagadda green scotus · 1998 1 sentence 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part).	1	1999–1999
Ritchie v. Raines green oklacrimapp · 1962 2 sentences 1999In Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), the United States Supreme Court stated "[t]he Blockburger test is a `rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent." In Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), the Supreme Court said: "Where, as here, a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regard 1999In Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), the United States Supreme Court stated "[t]he Blockburger test is a `rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent." In Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), the Supreme Court said: "Where, as here, a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regard	1	1999–1999
Ex Parte Smith green oklacrimapp · 1952 2 sentences 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part). 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part).	1	1999–1999
Hung Thanh Le v. State green oklacrimapp · 1997 2 sentences 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part). 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part).	1	1999–1999
Humphreys v. Oklahoma green scotus · 1998 1 sentence 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part).	1	1999–1999
Solomon v. Michigan green scotus · 1998 1 sentence 1999Ex parte Smith, 95 Okl.Cr. 370 , 246 P.2d 389 (1952). [1] 21 O.S.1991, § 11; Le v. State, 1997 OK CR 55 , 947 P.2d 535, 549 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930 , 118 S.Ct. 2329 , 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998). [2] 1995 OK CR 7 , 888 P.2d 1027 . [3] Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., dissenting), Petition for Rehearing Granted & Opinion Vacated & Withdrawn, 70 OBJ 2952. [4] See, e.g., Dodd , 70 OBJ 2382, 2386, 2388 (Lumpkin, V.P.J., and Lile, J., dissenting); Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30 , 942 P.2d 211, 216-218 (Lumpkin, J, concur in part/dissent in part).	1	1999–1999
State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Kennedy green nm · 1995 2 sentences 1996Kennedy, 904 P.2d at 1052 . 1996Kennedy, 904 P.2d at 1052 .	1	1996–1996
Grady v. Corbin red scotus · 1990 2 sentences 1992Finally, in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted. 1992Finally, in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.	1	1992–1992
United States v. Woodward green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 1992Finally, in United States v. Woodward, 469 U.S. 105 , 105 S.Ct. 611 , 83 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), the Supreme Court considered the case wherein Woodward was indicted on charges of making a false statement to an agency of the United States, and willfully failing to report that he was carrying in excess of $5,000.00 into the United States. 1992Finally, in United States v. Woodward, 469 U.S. 105 , 105 S.Ct. 611 , 83 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), the Supreme Court considered the case wherein Woodward was indicted on charges of making a false statement to an agency of the United States, and willfully failing to report that he was carrying in excess of $5,000.00 into the United States.	1	1992–1992
Whalen v. United States green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1992Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980). 1992Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980).	1	1992–1992
Garrett v. United States green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 1992Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778 , 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985). 1992Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778 , 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985).	1	1992–1992
State of Texas v. State of Louisiana green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 1988The Supreme Court has further clarified this test by holding that "[i]f each [statutory provision] requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes." Brown v. Ohio, 431 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). 1988The Supreme Court has further clarified this test by holding that "[i]f each [statutory provision] requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes." Brown v. Ohio, 431 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977).	1	1988–1988
Bowen v. State green oklacrimapp · 1978 2 sentences 1981"If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes." Brown v. Ohio, supra. In Bowen v. State, 586 P.2d 67 (Okl.Cr. 1978), this Court was presented with an identical fact situation. 1981"If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes." Brown v. Ohio, supra. In Bowen v. State, 586 P.2d 67 (Okl.Cr. 1978), this Court was presented with an identical fact situation.	1	1981–1981

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 11 (6) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 409 (1982–2026) FL 171 (1981–2026) NM 151 (1991–2026) LA 139 (1980–2025) WA 133 (1982–2026) TN 130 (1977–2026) OH 105 (1980–2026) CT 96 (1985–2026) VA 89 (1979–2026) MI 88 (1978–2026) AL 71 (1977–2025) KY 66 (1984–2026) IN 65 (1978–2020) MD 61 (1962–2022) DC 57 (1981–2026) MO 57 (1977–2024) MS 54 (1981–2023) PA 53 (1982–2025) IL 48 (1977–2023) WI 37 (1979–2023) ID 34 (1980–2025) WV 32 (1983–2025) MT 32 (1981–2024) WY 30 (1987–2023) NC 26 (1981–2026) NJ 25 (1982–2019) CO 23 (1980–2017) DE 22 (1980–2025) IA 22 (1983–2026) SC 21 (1990–2021) NV 20 (1984–2024) NY 20 (1978–2019) AZ 19 (1981–2024) SD 19 (1988–2019) RI 17 (1980–2013) NE 16 (1991–2025) VT 16 (1998–2024) GA 14 (1979–2023) AR 14 (1993–2024) ME 14 (1992–2025) OK 11 (1981–2024) HI 9 (1991–2005) MN 9 (1979–2013) OR 8 (1982–2020) CA 7 (2001–2020) MA 7 (1981–2023) VI 7 (1997–2013) KS 6 (1989–2006) AK 4 (1995–2024) ND 4 (2006–2023) GU 2 (2023–2025) NH 2 (1984–2006)

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