71 West Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2026 19 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Legg v. Felintongreen2 sentences2026“It is a paramount principle of jurisprudence that a court speaks only through its orders,” so “it is clear that where a [lower] court’s written order conflicts with its oral statement, the written order controls.” Legg v. Felinton, 219 W. 2026“It is a paramount principle of jurisprudence that a court speaks only through its orders,” so “it is clear that where a [lower] court’s written order conflicts with its oral statement, the written order controls.” Legg v. Felinton, 219 W. | 27 | 34 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2016Simply put, “[i]t is a paramount principle of jurisprudence that a court speaks only through its orders.” Legg v. Felinton, 219 W.Va. 478, 483 , 637 S.E.2d 576, 581 (2006)(citing State v. White, 188 W.Va. 534 , 536 n.2, 425 S.E.2d 210 , 212 n.2 (1992)). 2016Simply put, “[i]t is a paramount principle of jurisprudence that a court speaks only through its orders.” Legg v. Felinton, 219 W.Va. 478, 483 , 637 S.E.2d 576, 581 (2006)(citing State v. White, 188 W.Va. 534 , 536 n.2, 425 S.E.2d 210 , 212 n.2 (1992)). | 9 | 12 |
Weiss v. Sotogreen2 sentences2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: “The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy.” Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). 2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: "The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy." Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). | 2 | 9 |
Weiss v. Sotogreen2 sentences2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: “The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy.” Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). 2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: "The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy." Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). | 2 | 7 |
In Re: Conleygreen2 sentences2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: "The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy." Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). 2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: "The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy." Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). | 2 | 3 |
Cresap v. Cresapgreen2 sentences1957Goetz v. Old National Bank of Martinsburg, 140 W.Va. 422 , 84 S.E.2d 759 ; Harper v. Cumberland and Allegheny Gas Company, 140 W.Va. 193 , 83 S.E.2d 522 ; Young v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 425 , 76 S.E.2d 276 ; Ball v. Ball, 136 W.Va. 852 , 69 S.E.2d 55 ; Hunt v. Furman, 132 W.Va. 706 , 52 S.E.2d 816 ; Stephenson v. Kuntz, 131 W.Va. 599 , 49 S.E.2d 235 ; Wheeling Dollar Savings and Trust Company v. Stewart, 128 W.Va. 703 , 37 S.E.2d 563 ; Hedrick v. Hedrick, 125 W.Va. 702 , 25 S.E.2d 872 ; In re Reed's Estate, 125 W.Va. 555 , 26 S.E.2d 222 ; Wilcox v. Mowrey, 125 W.Va. 333 , 24 S.E.2d 922 ; Harris v. 1957Goetz v. Old National Bank of Martinsburg, 140 W.Va. 422 , 84 S.E.2d 759 ; Harper v. Cumberland and Allegheny Gas Company, 140 W.Va. 193 , 83 S.E.2d 522 ; Young v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 425 , 76 S.E.2d 276 ; Ball v. Ball, 136 W.Va. 852 , 69 S.E.2d 55 ; Hunt v. Furman, 132 W.Va. 706 , 52 S.E.2d 816 ; Stephenson v. Kuntz, 131 W.Va. 599 , 49 S.E.2d 235 ; Wheeling Dollar Savings and Trust Company v. Stewart, 128 W.Va. 703 , 37 S.E.2d 563 ; Hedrick v. Hedrick, 125 W.Va. 702 , 25 S.E.2d 872 ; In re Reed's Estate, 125 W.Va. 555 , 26 S.E.2d 222 ; Wilcox v. Mowrey, 125 W.Va. 333 , 24 S.E.2d 922 ; Harris v. | 2 | 3 |
Hobbs v. Brennemangreen2 sentences2005In Hobbs v. Brenneman, 94 W.Va. 320, 323 , 118 S.E. 546, 549 (1923), we described the role of the judiciary in ascertaining the intention of the testator as follows: When the intention is ascertained from an examination of all its parts the problem is solved. 2005In Hobbs v. Brenneman, 94 W.Va. 320, 323 , 118 S.E. 546, 549 (1923), we described the role of the judiciary in ascertaining the intention of the testator as follows: When the intention is ascertained from an examination of all its parts the problem is solved. | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Erlewine v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2025Erlewine v. Thompson, 156 W. | 1 | 1 |
Painter v. Colemangreen2 sentences2024As our Supreme Court has observed, “[d]ecisions involving construction of wills always begin with the following axiom: The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy.” Painter v. Coleman, 211 W. 2024Va. 451, 454 , 566 S.E.2d 588, 591 (2002) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In re Walter G.green2 sentences2020Petitioner is correct that we have long held that “[i]t is a paramount principle of jurisprudence that a court speaks only through its orders.” In re Walter G., 231 W. 2020Va. 108, 114 , 743 S.E.2d 919, 925 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Fussell v. Fortneygreen2 sentences2015Pt. 2, Estate of Fussell v. Fortney, 229 W.Va. 622, 623 , 730 S.E.2d 405, 406 (2012) (Internal quotations and citations.). 2015Pt. 2, Estate of Fussell v. Fortney, 229 W.Va. 622, 623 , 730 S.E.2d 405, 406 (2012) (Internal quotations and citations.). | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Union National Bankgreen2 sentences1991See also Berry v. Union National Bank, 164 W.Va. 258 , 262 S.E.2d 766 (1980); Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 *101 S.E.2d 769 (1976); Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); and Goetz v. Old National Bank, 140 W.Va. 422 , 84 S.E.2d 759 (1954). 1991See also Berry v. Union National Bank, 164 W.Va. 258 , 262 S.E.2d 766 (1980); Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 *101 S.E.2d 769 (1976); Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); and Goetz v. Old National Bank, 140 W.Va. 422 , 84 S.E.2d 759 (1954). | 1 | 1 |
Diamond v. Parkersburg-Aetna Corporationgreen1 sentence1984The paramount principle is that “[t]he object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it.” Diamond v. Parkersburg-Aetna Corporation, 146 W.Va. 543, 555 , 122 S.E.2d 436, 443 (1961) (emphasis in original). 4 Although there are no West Virginia cases construing the language involved here, State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Farmers & Merchants Bank of Keyser v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Keyser
green
2 sentences2019“The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy.” Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W. 2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: "The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy." Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). | 8 | 1982–2019 |
FARMERS & MERCH BK. v. Farmers & Merch. Bk.
green
2 sentences2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: “The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy.” Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). 2007We have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: "The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy." Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see also Syllabus Point 4, Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); In re Conley, 122 W.Va. 559, 561 , 12 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1940). | 7 | 1982–2019 |
Goetz v. Old National Bank of Martinsburg
green
2 sentences1991See also Berry v. Union National Bank, 164 W.Va. 258 , 262 S.E.2d 766 (1980); Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 *101 S.E.2d 769 (1976); Weiss v. Soto, 142 W.Va. 783 , 98 S.E.2d 727 (1957); and Goetz v. Old National Bank, 140 W.Va. 422 , 84 S.E.2d 759 (1954). 1968Va. 422 , 84 S. E. 2d 759 , in this manner: “The paramount rule in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator must be given effect, unless that intention violates some positive rule of law.” See Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Com *33 pany v. Stewart, 128 W. | 6 | 1957–1991 |
Hemphill v. Aukamp
green
2 sentences2024“The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a trust is that the intention of the settlor prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy.” Syllabus Point 1, Hemphill v. Aukamp, 164 W. 1991The specific rule, as set forth in syllabus point 1 of Hemphill v. Aukamp, 164 W.Va. 368 , 264 S.E.2d 163 (1980), states: The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a trust is that the intention of the settlor prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy. | 3 | 1991–2024 |
Hinton v. Milburn's Ex'rs
neutral
2 sentences1957Goetz v. Old National Bank of Martinsburg, 140 W.Va. 422 , 84 S.E.2d 759 ; Harper v. Cumberland and Allegheny Gas Company, 140 W.Va. 193 , 83 S.E.2d 522 ; Young v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 425 , 76 S.E.2d 276 ; Ball v. Ball, 136 W.Va. 852 , 69 S.E.2d 55 ; Hunt v. Furman, 132 W.Va. 706 , 52 S.E.2d 816 ; Stephenson v. Kuntz, 131 W.Va. 599 , 49 S.E.2d 235 ; Wheeling Dollar Savings and Trust Company v. Stewart, 128 W.Va. 703 , 37 S.E.2d 563 ; Hedrick v. Hedrick, 125 W.Va. 702 , 25 S.E.2d 872 ; In re Reed's Estate, 125 W.Va. 555 , 26 S.E.2d 222 ; Wilcox v. Mowrey, 125 W.Va. 333 , 24 S.E.2d 922 ; Harris v. 1954Hinton v. Milburn, 23 W. | 3 | 1953–1957 |
McCreery v. Johnston
green
2 sentences1954Va. 80 , 110 S. E. 464 , the rule is stated as follows: The paramount rule in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator must be given effect,, unless that intention violates some positive rule of law or public policy. 1953Va. 80 , 110 S. E. 464 , the rule is stated as follows: The paramount rule in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator must be given effect, unless that intention violates some positive rule of law or public policy. | 3 | 1953–1957 |
Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. v. Stewart
neutral
2 sentences1968Va. 422 , 84 S. E. 2d 759 , in this manner: “The paramount rule in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator must be given effect, unless that intention violates some positive rule of law.” See Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Com *33 pany v. Stewart, 128 W. 1968Va. 703 , 37 S. E. 2d 563 ; Hedrick v. Hedrick, 125 W. | 2 | 1957–1968 |
Hedrick v. Hedrick
green
2 sentences1968Va. 703 , 37 S. E. 2d 563 ; Hedrick v. Hedrick, 125 W. 1957Goetz v. Old National Bank of Martinsburg, 140 W.Va. 422 , 84 S.E.2d 759 ; Harper v. Cumberland and Allegheny Gas Company, 140 W.Va. 193 , 83 S.E.2d 522 ; Young v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 425 , 76 S.E.2d 276 ; Ball v. Ball, 136 W.Va. 852 , 69 S.E.2d 55 ; Hunt v. Furman, 132 W.Va. 706 , 52 S.E.2d 816 ; Stephenson v. Kuntz, 131 W.Va. 599 , 49 S.E.2d 235 ; Wheeling Dollar Savings and Trust Company v. Stewart, 128 W.Va. 703 , 37 S.E.2d 563 ; Hedrick v. Hedrick, 125 W.Va. 702 , 25 S.E.2d 872 ; In re Reed's Estate, 125 W.Va. 555 , 26 S.E.2d 222 ; Wilcox v. Mowrey, 125 W.Va. 333 , 24 S.E.2d 922 ; Harris v. | 2 | 1957–1968 |
Dantzic v. Dantzic
neutral
2 sentences2018Pt. 2, Dantzic v. Dantzic, 222 W.Va. 535 , 668 S.E.2d 164 (2008) (quoting Syl. 2018Pt. 2, Dantzic v. Dantzic, 222 W.Va. 535 , 668 S.E.2d 164 (2008) (quoting Syl. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State of ex rel. Bowling v. Greenbrier County Commission
green
2 sentences2016DISCUSSION Initially, we observe that, in contested election cases, we must “remain ever mindful *326 of the paramount principle that election laws are to be construed in favor of enfranchisement, not disenfranchisement.” Bowling, 212 W.Va. at 649 , 575 S.E.2d at 259 . 2016DISCUSSION Initially, we observe that, in contested election cases, we must “remain ever mindful *326 of the paramount principle that election laws are to be construed in favor of enfranchisement, not disenfranchisement.” Bowling, 212 W.Va. at 649 , 575 S.E.2d at 259 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re the Estate of Teubert
green
2 sentences2005Clearly, as we stated in Syllabus Point 8 of In re Estate of Teubert, 171 W.Va. 226 , 298 S.E.2d 456 (1982), “[t]he law favors testacy over intestacy.” Likewise, we have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: “The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy.” Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see als 2005Clearly, as we stated in Syllabus Point 8 of In re Estate of Teubert, 171 W.Va. 226 , 298 S.E.2d 456 (1982), “[t]he law favors testacy over intestacy.” Likewise, we have consistently held that decisions involving the construction of a will always begin with the recognition that: “The paramount principle in construing or giving effect to a will is that the intention of the testator prevails, unless it is contrary to some positive rule of law or principle of public policy.” Syllabus Point 1, Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 158 W.Va. 1012 , 216 S.E.2d 769 (1975); see als | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Diamond v. Parkersburg-Aetna Corp.
green
1 sentence1984The paramount principle is that “[t]he object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it.” Diamond v. Parkersburg-Aetna Corporation, 146 W.Va. 543, 555 , 122 S.E.2d 436, 443 (1961) (emphasis in original). 4 Although there are no West Virginia cases construing the language involved here, State ex rel. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State Ex Rel. Summerfield v. Maxwell
green
2 sentences1984Summerfield v. Maxwell, 148 W.Va. 535 , 135 S.E.2d 741 (1964) is instructive. 1984Summerfield v. Maxwell, 148 W.Va. 535 , 135 S.E.2d 741 (1964) is instructive. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Otta v. Otta
green
2 sentences1971This rule of construction overrides all other rules of construction such as the favored construction of early vesting. 16 A.L.R.2d Anno., 1378; Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. Willim, supra; Otta v. Otta, 58 Ill. 1971This rule of construction overrides all other rules of construction such as the favored construction of early vesting. 16 A.L.R.2d Anno., 1378; Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. Willim, supra ; Otta v. Otta, 68 Ill.App.2d 63 , 207 N.E.2d 147 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Mills v. Village of Milan
green
1 sentence1971This rule of construction overrides all other rules of construction such as the favored construction of early vesting. 16 A.L.R.2d Anno., 1378; Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. Willim, supra ; Otta v. Otta, 68 Ill.App.2d 63 , 207 N.E.2d 147 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Mauzy v. Nelson
green
1 sentence1967Mauzy v. Nelson, 147 W. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| State v. Mitchell green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| State v. Lake neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| State v. Zitzelsberger green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
State v. Simmons
green
2 sentences1964State v. Ash, 139 W.Va. 374 , syl., 80 S.E.2d 339 ; State v. Zitzelsberger, 129 W.Va. 229 , pt. 1 syl., 39 S.E.2d 835 ; State v. Garner, 128 W.Va. 726 , pt. 1 syl., 38 S.E.2d 337 ; State v. Livesay, 127 W.Va. 579 , pt. 1 syl., 34 S.E.2d 24 ; State v. Lake, 112 W.Va. 665 , 166 S.E. 384 ; State v. Simmons, 99 W.Va. 702 , pt. 1 syl., 129 S.E. 757 ; State v. Mitchell, 47 W.Va. 789 , pt. 2 syl., 35 S.E. 845 . 1964State v. Ash, 139 W.Va. 374 , syl., 80 S.E.2d 339 ; State v. Zitzelsberger, 129 W.Va. 229 , pt. 1 syl., 39 S.E.2d 835 ; State v. Garner, 128 W.Va. 726 , pt. 1 syl., 38 S.E.2d 337 ; State v. Livesay, 127 W.Va. 579 , pt. 1 syl., 34 S.E.2d 24 ; State v. Lake, 112 W.Va. 665 , 166 S.E. 384 ; State v. Simmons, 99 W.Va. 702 , pt. 1 syl., 129 S.E. 757 ; State v. Mitchell, 47 W.Va. 789 , pt. 2 syl., 35 S.E. 845 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| State v. Garner neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| State v. Livesay green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| State v. Ash green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Ball v. Ball neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Liston v. Jenkins neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Bell's Admr. v. Humphrey green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Whelan v. Reilly green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Magers v. Edward neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| French v. French neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Graham v. Graham green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Couch v. Eastham neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Broderick v. Broderick's Ex'r neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Harper v. CUMBERLAND & ALLEGHENY GAS COMPANY neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Young v. Lewis green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| In Re Estate of Reed green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Harris v. Eskridge green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Stephenson v. Kuntz green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Wilcox v. Mowrey neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Brookover v. Grimm neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Davis v. Davis neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.