75 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pulkrabek v. Slettengreen2 sentences2010Summary judgment is appropriate “ ‘against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute as to an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Pulkrabek v. Sletten, 557 N.W.2d 225, 226 (N.D.1996)). 2010Summary judgment is appropriate “‘against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute as to an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Id. (quoting Pulkrabek v. Sletten , 557 N.W.2d 225, 226 (N.D. 1996)). | 5 | 5 |
Soentgen v. Quain & Ramstad Clinic, P.C.green2 sentences1999See Pulkrabek v. Sletten, 557 N.W.2d 225, 226 (N.D.1996) (quoting Soentgen v. Quain & Ramstad Clinic, P.C., 467 N.W.2d 73, 77 (N.D.1991)) (“The plain language of Rule 56 requires the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute as to an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.”). 1999Pulkrabek v. Sletten, 557 N.W.2d 225, 226 (N.D.1996); Soentgen v. Quain & Ramstad Clinic, P.C., 467 N.W.2d 73, 77 (N.D.1991). [¶ 17] Strom-Sell’s evidence in opposition to the motion failed to meet her burden of demonstrating genuine issues of material fact. | 5 | 5 |
Peterson v. Zerrgreen2 sentences2003Co., 2001 ND 125, ¶ 14 , 630 N.W.2d 46 (quoting Peterson v. Zerr, 477 N.W.2d 230, 234 (N.D.1991)). [¶ 6] Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim and on which she will bear the burden of proof at trial. 2003Co., 2001 ND 125, ¶ 14 , 630 N.W.2d 46 (quoting Peterson v. Zerr, 477 N.W.2d 230, 234 (N.D.1991)). [¶ 9] Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim and on which she will bear the burden of proof at trial. | 4 | 4 |
Bjerk v. Andersongreen2 sentences2018See Bjerk v. Anderson , 2018 ND 124 , ¶ 9, 911 N.W.2d 343 . 2018See Bjerk v. Anderson , 2018 ND 124 , ¶ 9, 911 N.W.2d 343 . | 3 | 3 |
Eckmann v. Northwestern Federal Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences1996When no pertinent evidence on an essential element is presented to the trial court in resistance to the motion for summary judgment, it is presumed that no such evidence exists. [citations omitted] Soentgen v. Quain & Ramstad Clinic, P.C. , 467 N.W.2d 73, 77 (N.D. 1991) quoting Eckmann v. Northwestern Federal Savings & Loan Association , 436 N.W.2d 258, 260 (N.D. 1989). 1996When no pertinent evidence on an essential element is presented to the trial court in resistance to the motion for summary judgment, it is presumed that no such evidence exists, [citations omitted] Soentgen v. Quoin & Ramstad Clinic, P.C., 467 N.W.2d 73, 77 (N.D.1991) quoting Eckmann v. Northwestern Federal Savings & Loan Association, 436 N.W.2d 258, 260 (N.D.1989). | 3 | 3 |
Trosen v. Trosengreen2 sentences2025Trosen v. Trosen, 2014 ND 7, ¶¶ 10, 19 , 841 N.W.2d 687 (noting the existence of a valid contract is an essential element of a claim for interference with contractual relations). 2025Trosen v. Trosen, 2014 ND 7, ¶¶ 10, 19 , 841 N.W.2d 687 (noting the existence of a valid contract is an essential element of a claim for interference with contractual relations). | 2 | 2 |
Kummer v. City of Fargogreen2 sentences2009E.g., Halvorson v. Sentry Ins., 2008 ND 205, ¶ 5 , 757 N.W.2d 398 . “ ‘When no pertinent evidence on an essential element is presented to the trial court in resistance to the motion for summary judgment, it is presumed that no such evidence exists.’” Riemers v. City of Grand Forks, 2006 ND 224, ¶ 8 , 723 N.W.2d 518 (quoting Rummer v. City of Fargo, 516 N.W.2d 294, 297 (N.D.1994)); see also Halvorson, at ¶ 5; Investors Real Estate Trust Props., Inc. v. *461 Terra Pac. 1994We recently stated in Rummer v. City of Fargo, 516 N.W.2d 294, 297 (N.D. 1994) (citations omitted): “The plain language of Rule 56 requires the entry of summary judgment, upon motion and after adequate time for discovery, against a party who fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute as to an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.... | 2 | 2 |
Riemers v. City of Grand Forksgreen2 sentences2018"When no pertinent evidence on an essential element is presented to the trial court in resistance to the motion for summary judgment, it is presumed that no such evidence exists." Id. (quoting Riemers v. City of Grand Forks , 2006 ND 224 , ¶ 8, 723 N.W.2d 518 ). 2018"When no pertinent evidence on an essential element is presented to the trial court in resistance to the motion for summary judgment, it is presumed that no such evidence exists." Id. (quoting Riemers v. City of Grand Forks , 2006 ND 224 , ¶ 8, 723 N.W.2d 518 ). | 1 | 6 |
Kimball v. Landeisgreen2 sentences2024B [¶35] Ziemann argues the district court erred when it determined he did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he sustained damages as a result of Grosz’s alleged misconduct. 11 [¶36] “‘Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Collette v. Clausen, 2003 ND 129, ¶ 14 , 667 N.W.2d 617 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ). 2024B [¶35] Ziemann argues the district court erred when it determined he did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he sustained damages as a result of Grosz’s alleged misconduct. 11 [¶36] “‘Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Collette v. Clausen, 2003 ND 129, ¶ 14 , 667 N.W.2d 617 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ). | 1 | 3 |
Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughtongreen2 sentences2008Milkovich , 497 U.S. at 17 (quoting Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton , 491 U.S. 657, 685 (1989)). [¶20] “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of their claim and on which they will bear the burden at trial.” Bertsch , 2002 ND 32, ¶ 9 , 639 N.W.2d 455 . 2008Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 17 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 (quoting Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 685 , 109 S.Ct. 2678 , 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989)). [¶ 20] “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of their claim and on which they will bear the burden at trial.” Bertsch, 2002 ND 32, ¶ 9 , 639 N.W.2d 455 . | 1 | 2 |
| Ortega v. Sanford Bismarckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Perius v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Estate of Stantongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dahlberg v. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERV. OF NDgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Windsor Securities, Inc. v. Hartford Life Insurance Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Price v. Sorrellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ellingson v. Knudsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Michael Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corporation, D/B/A Target Stores, a Minnesota Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dobbins v. Huppgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Haugland v. City of Bismarckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ken by Shasky v. Rcgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barbie v. Minko Construction, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020“As determined in Section II of this Order, Feltman has not established one of the elements of legal malpractice, i.e., that Feltman suffered damages when Gaustad breached a duty and ‘prematurely’ dismissed the federal lawsuit, because, as a matter of law, Feltman had six years within which to sue Chase for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and dismissal did not foreclose that remedy. “‘Rule 56 requires the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute as to an essential element of the claim and on which the party will bear t 2020“As determined in Section II of this Order, Feltman has not established one of the elements of legal malpractice, i.e., that Feltman suffered damages when Gaustad breached a duty and ‘prematurely’ dismissed the federal lawsuit, because, as a matter of law, Feltman had six years within which to sue Chase for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and dismissal did not foreclose that remedy. “‘Rule 56 requires the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute as to an essential element of the claim and on which the party will bear t | 9 | 2013–2020 |
Zuger v. State
green
2 sentences2024“Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of a claim.” Riemers v. Omdahl, 2004 ND 188, ¶ 4 , 687 N.W.2d 445 (quoting Zuger v. State, 2004 ND 16, ¶ 7 , 673 N.W.2d 615 ). 2024“Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of a claim.” Riemers v. Omdahl, 2004 ND 188, ¶ 4 , 687 N.W.2d 445 (quoting Zuger v. State, 2004 ND 16, ¶ 7 , 673 N.W.2d 615 ). | 8 | 2004–2024 |
Riemers v. Omdahl
green
2 sentences2024“Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of a claim.” Riemers v. Omdahl, 2004 ND 188, ¶ 4 , 687 N.W.2d 445 (quoting Zuger v. State, 2004 ND 16, ¶ 7 , 673 N.W.2d 615 ). 2024“Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of a claim.” Riemers v. Omdahl, 2004 ND 188, ¶ 4 , 687 N.W.2d 445 (quoting Zuger v. State, 2004 ND 16, ¶ 7 , 673 N.W.2d 615 ). | 6 | 2022–2024 |
Black v. Abex Corp.
green
2 sentences2010Black, 1999 ND 236, ¶ 23 , 603 N.W.2d 182 (“Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim and on which she will bear the burden of proof at trial.”). [¶ 16] Quality Bank’s overdraft fee schedule provides for two types of overdraft fees and charges. 2010Black, 1999 ND 236, ¶ 23 , 603 N.W.2d 182 (“Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim and on which she will bear the burden of proof at trial.”). [¶ 16] Quality Bank’s overdraft fee schedule provides for two types of overdraft fees and charges. | 5 | 2002–2010 |
Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried
green
2 sentences2007Dist., 2006 ND 58, ¶ 7 , 711 N.W.2d 172 . [¶ 5] “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of a claim on which they will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149, ¶ 8 , 703 N.W.2d 330 . 2007Dist., 2006 ND 58, ¶ 7 , 711 N.W.2d 172 . [¶ 5] “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of a claim on which they will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149, ¶ 8 , 703 N.W.2d 330 . | 5 | 2006–2009 |
Strom-Sell v. Council for Concerned Citizens, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Joseph’s Hosp. , 1999 ND 204, ¶ 9 , 601 N.W.2d 587 , and Strom-Sell v. Council for Concerned Citizens, Inc. , 1999 ND 132, ¶ 16 , 597 N.W.2d 414 . [¶15] Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim and on which she will bear the burden of proof at trial. 2001Joseph’s Hosp. , 1999 ND 204, ¶ 9 , 601 N.W.2d 587 , and Strom-Sell v. Council for Concerned Citizens, Inc. , 1999 ND 132, ¶ 16 , 597 N.W.2d 414 . [¶15] Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim and on which she will bear the burden of proof at trial. | 4 | 2001–2010 |
Anderson v. Meyer Broadcasting Co.
green
2 sentences2003Co., 2001 ND 125, ¶ 14 , 630 N.W.2d 46 (quoting Peterson v. Zerr, 477 N.W.2d 230, 234 (N.D.1991)). [¶ 6] Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim and on which she will bear the burden of proof at trial. 2003Co., 2001 ND 125, ¶ 14 , 630 N.W.2d 46 (quoting Peterson v. Zerr, 477 N.W.2d 230, 234 (N.D.1991)). [¶ 6] Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of her claim and on which she will bear the burden of proof at trial. | 4 | 2002–2003 |
Johnson v. Bronson
green
2 sentences2020In determining whether summary judgment was appropriately granted, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the record.” Ortega, 2019 ND 133, ¶ 9 (quoting Johnson v. Bronson, 2013 ND 78, ¶ 9 , 830 N.W.2d 595 ). 3 [¶12] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56, summary judgment is proper when a party bearing the burden of proof at trial fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute on an essential element of the claim. 2019Johnson v. Bronson , 2013 ND 78 , ¶ 9, 830 N.W.2d 595 (citation omitted). [¶10] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when a party, who bears the burden of proof at trial, fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute on an essential element of the claim. | 3 | 2013–2020 |
Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas
green
2 sentences2018Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas , 2005 ND 26 , ¶ 8, 691 N.W.2d 862 (quoting Zuger v. State , 2004 ND 16 , ¶ 7, 673 N.W.2d 615 ). [¶ 8] In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the district court may consider the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, interrogatories, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence. 2018Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas , 2005 ND 26 , ¶ 8, 691 N.W.2d 862 (quoting Zuger v. State , 2004 ND 16 , ¶ 7, 673 N.W.2d 615 ). [¶ 8] In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the district court may consider the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, interrogatories, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence. | 3 | 2013–2018 |
Halvorson v. Sentry Insurance
green
2 sentences2010Summary judgment is appropriate “ ‘against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute as to an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Pulkrabek v. Sletten, 557 N.W.2d 225, 226 (N.D.1996)). 2010Summary judgment is appropriate “‘against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute as to an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Id. (quoting Pulkrabek v. Sletten , 557 N.W.2d 225, 226 (N.D. 1996)). | 3 | 2009–2010 |
Hopfauf v. Hieb
green
2 sentences2009Hopfauf v. Hieb, 2006 ND 72, ¶ 6 , 712 N.W.2d 333 (quoting Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149, ¶ 8 , 703 N.W.2d 330 ). 2009Hopfauf v. Hieb, 2006 ND 72, ¶ 6 , 712 N.W.2d 333 (quoting Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149, ¶ 8 , 703 N.W.2d 330 ). | 3 | 2006–2009 |
Collette v. Clausen
green
2 sentences2024B [¶35] Ziemann argues the district court erred when it determined he did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he sustained damages as a result of Grosz’s alleged misconduct. 11 [¶36] “‘Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Collette v. Clausen, 2003 ND 129, ¶ 14 , 667 N.W.2d 617 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ). 2024B [¶35] Ziemann argues the district court erred when it determined he did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he sustained damages as a result of Grosz’s alleged misconduct. 11 [¶36] “‘Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Collette v. Clausen, 2003 ND 129, ¶ 14 , 667 N.W.2d 617 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Johnson v. Bronson
green
2 sentences2020In determining whether summary judgment was appropriately granted, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the record.” Ortega, 2019 ND 133, ¶ 9 (quoting Johnson v. Bronson, 2013 ND 78, ¶ 9 , 830 N.W.2d 595 ). 3 [¶12] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56, summary judgment is proper when a party bearing the burden of proof at trial fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute on an essential element of the claim. 2019Johnson v. Bronson , 2013 ND 78 , ¶ 9, 830 N.W.2d 595 (citation omitted). [¶10] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when a party, who bears the burden of proof at trial, fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute on an essential element of the claim. | 2 | 2019–2020 |
University Hotel Development, LLC v. Dusterhoft Oil, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013As in University Hotel Dev., LLC , we decline to address whether a third party may enforce a promise under the promissory estoppel doctrine because an essential element of the claim is missing. 2006 ND 121, ¶ 18 , 715 N.W.2d 153 . 2013As in University Hotel Dev., LLC , we decline to address whether a third party may enforce a promise under the promissory estoppel doctrine because an essential element of the claim is missing. 2006 ND 121, ¶ 18 , 715 N.W.2d 153 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Investors Real Estate Trust Properties, Inc. v. Terra Pacific Midwest, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Miller v. Diamond Resources, Inc., 2005 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 703 N.W.2d 316 ; Investors Real Estate Trust, 2004 ND 167, ¶ 7 , 686 N.W.2d 140 . 2009Miller v. Diamond Resources, Inc., 2005 ND 150, ¶ 10 , 703 N.W.2d 316 ; Investors Real Estate Trust, 2004 ND 167, ¶ 7 , 686 N.W.2d 140 . | 2 | 2004–2009 |
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
green
2 sentences2008Milkovich , 497 U.S. at 17 (quoting Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton , 491 U.S. 657, 685 (1989)). [¶20] “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of their claim and on which they will bear the burden at trial.” Bertsch , 2002 ND 32, ¶ 9 , 639 N.W.2d 455 . 2008Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 17 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 (quoting Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 685 , 109 S.Ct. 2678 , 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989)). [¶ 20] “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of their claim and on which they will bear the burden at trial.” Bertsch, 2002 ND 32, ¶ 9 , 639 N.W.2d 455 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Bertsch v. Duemeland
green
2 sentences2008Milkovich , 497 U.S. at 17 (quoting Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton , 491 U.S. 657, 685 (1989)). [¶20] “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of their claim and on which they will bear the burden at trial.” Bertsch , 2002 ND 32, ¶ 9 , 639 N.W.2d 455 . 2008Milkovich , 497 U.S. at 17 (quoting Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton , 491 U.S. 657, 685 (1989)). [¶20] “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of their claim and on which they will bear the burden at trial.” Bertsch , 2002 ND 32, ¶ 9 , 639 N.W.2d 455 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Koehler v. County of Grand Forks
green
2 sentences2004Koehler v. County of Grand Forks, 2003 ND 44, ¶ 9 , 658 N.W.2d 741 . 2004Koehler v. County of Grand Forks, 2003 ND 44, ¶ 9 , 658 N.W.2d 741 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Dalan v. Paracelsus Healthcare Corp. of North Dakota
green
2 sentences2003Balan v. Paracelsus Healthcare Corp., 2002 ND 46, ¶ 7 , 640 N.W.2d 726 . 2003Balan v. Paracelsus Healthcare Corp., 2002 ND 46, ¶ 7 , 640 N.W.2d 726 . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Hilton v. North Dakota Education Ass'n
green
2 sentences2003Hilton, 2002 ND 209, ¶23 , 655 N.W.2d 60 . 2003Hilton, 2002 ND 209, ¶23 , 655 N.W.2d 60 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| Barnes v. St. Joseph's Hospital green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| Ziemann v. Grosz neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Miller v. Diamond Resources, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| In Re Estate of Richmond green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Grandbois and Grandbois, Inc. v. City of Watford City green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Beckler v. Bismarck Public School District green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Riemers v. Peters-Riemers green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Lynne green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| TIBERT v. Slominski green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Fish v. Dockter green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Rogstad v. Dakota Gasification Co. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| North Shore, Inc. v. Wakefield green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Williams County Social Services Board v. Falcon green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Union State Bank v. Woell green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Production Credit Ass'n of Fargo v. Foss green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Wilson v. General Motors Corp. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.