70 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2026 26 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2020An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the reviewing court is satisfied “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, 386 US at 24 . 2020In making that argument, defendant relies on the harmlessness standard for federal constitutional error set out in Chapman v. California, 386 US 18 , 87 S Ct 824 , 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967), which requires “the beneficiary of a constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not con- tribute to the verdict obtained.” Id. at 24 . | 5 | 14 |
State v. Perkinsgreen2 sentences2025An instructional error of that nature is harmless if “it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Perkins, 325 Or App at 631 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2025An instructional error of that nature is harmless if “it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Perkins, 325 Or App at 631 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 7 |
In Re WINSHIPgreen2 sentences2022In re Winship, 397 US 358, 363-64 , 90 S Ct 1068 , 25 L Ed 368 (1970); Mahorney v. Wallman, 917 F2d 469, 472 (10th Cir 1990) (describing the reasonable doubt standard as a “constitutionally rooted * * * basic right”); State v. Rosasco, 103 Or 343, 357 , 205 P 290 (1922) (“The presumption of innocence is not a mere form, but a substantial part of the law.”). 2022In re Winship, 397 US 358, 363-64 , 90 S Ct 1068 , 25 L Ed 368 (1970); Mahorney v. Wallman, 917 F2d 469, 472 (10th Cir 1990) (describing the reasonable doubt standard as a “constitutionally rooted * * * basic right”); State v. Rosasco, 103 Or 343, 357 , 205 P 290 (1922) (“The presumption of innocence is not a mere form, but a substantial part of the law.”). | 2 | 7 |
State v. Chitwoodgreen2 sentences2026See Burton, 373 Or at 759-60 (observing that a court’s exer- cise of discretion regarding control of jury argument may be informed by the defendant’s constitutional rights); State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 316-17 , 518 P3d 903 (2022) (conclud- ing that prosecutor’s argument incorrectly characterizing the reasonable doubt standard was improper); State v. Perez, 373 Or 591, 619 , 568 P3d 940 (2025) (Bushong, J., concur- ring) (explaining that a prosecutor’s comment suggesting that a defendant bears any burden, except where defendant has burden of proving affirmative defense, “undermines the presu 2026See Burton, 373 Or at 759-60 (observing that a court’s exer- cise of discretion regarding control of jury argument may be informed by the defendant’s constitutional rights); State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 316-17 , 518 P3d 903 (2022) (conclud- ing that prosecutor’s argument incorrectly characterizing the reasonable doubt standard was improper); State v. Perez, 373 Or 591, 619 , 568 P3d 940 (2025) (Bushong, J., concur- ring) (explaining that a prosecutor’s comment suggesting that a defendant bears any burden, except where defendant has burden of proving affirmative defense, “undermines the presu | 2 | 3 |
State v. Wyattgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 341 , 15 P3d 22 (2000) (stating the general rule that “an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal”); ORAP 5.45(1) (we have discretionary authority to correct “plain” errors). 2025See State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 341 , 15 P3d 22 (2000) (stating the general rule that “an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal”); ORAP 5.45(1) (we have discretionary authority to correct “plain” errors). | 2 | 2 |
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences2009Sec., 219 Ariz. 331, ¶ 16 , 198 P.3d 1203, 1207 (2009) ("We do not believe that Congress [in enacting ICWA] intended to apply the reasonable doubt standard to state-law findings."). 2009Sec., 219 Ariz 331, ¶ 16, 198 P3d 1203, 1207 (2009) (‘We do not believe that Congress [in enacting ICWA] intended to apply the reasonable doubt standard to state-law findings.”). | 2 | 2 |
McMillan v. Pennsylvaniared2 sentences2006"Reaffirming its decision in Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), the McMillan Court reasoned that, `[w]hile there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go in this regard, the applicability of the reasonable doubt standard * * * has always been dependent on how a State defines the offense that is charged in any given case[.]' 477 U.S. at 85 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2006"Reaffirming its decision in Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), the McMillan Court reasoned that, `[w]hile there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go in this regard, the applicability of the reasonable doubt standard * * * has always been dependent on how a State defines the offense that is charged in any given case[.]' 477 U.S. at 85 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (an error is harmless, and thus not a basis for reversal, where there is “little likelihood that the error affected the jury’s verdict”); State v. Perkins, 325 Or App 624, 630-31 , 529 P3d 999 (2023) (a federal constitutional error is harmless, and thus not a basis for reversal, if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict).2 We are unpersuaded that the error was harmless. 2024See State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (an error is harmless, and thus not a basis for reversal, where there is “little likelihood that the error affected the jury’s verdict”); State v. Perkins, 325 Or App 624, 630-31 , 529 P3d 999 (2023) (a federal constitutional error is harmless, and thus not a basis for reversal, if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict).2 We are unpersuaded that the error was harmless. | 1 | 5 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025Because the failure to submit a required element of an offense to the jury is a federal constitutional error, “[t]he test ‘is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error com- plained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” State v. Perkins, 325 Or App 624, 630-31 , 529 P3d 999 (2023) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 15 , 119 S Ct 1827 , 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999)). 2025Because the failure to submit a required element of an offense to the jury is a federal constitutional error, “[t]he test ‘is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error com- plained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” State v. Perkins, 325 Or App 624, 630-31 , 529 P3d 999 (2023) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 15 , 119 S Ct 1827 , 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999)). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Oliphantgreen2 sentences2018However, "[t]he burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defense does not apply." UCrJI 1227; see Oliphant , 347 Or. at 194 , 218 P.3d 1281 (with respect to the defendant's claim of self-defense, the defendant "had a right to have the jury consider the circumstances surrounding the event from his own point of view" because "the burden of proof was on the state to disprove the existence of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt"). 2018However, "[t]he burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defense does not apply." UCrJI 1227; see Oliphant , 347 Or. at 194 , 218 P.3d 1281 (with respect to the defendant's claim of self-defense, the defendant "had a right to have the jury consider the circumstances surrounding the event from his own point of view" because "the burden of proof was on the state to disprove the existence of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt"). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Owengreen2 sentences2024State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 323 , 505 P3d 953 (2022). 1 In State v. Perkins, 325 Or App 624, 630-31 , 529 P3d 999 (2023), which involved a preserved error, we explained that the failure to submit a required element of the offense is harmless under the federal constitutional standard if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. 2024State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 323 , 505 P3d 953 (2022). 1 In State v. Perkins, 325 Or App 624, 630-31 , 529 P3d 999 (2023), which involved a preserved error, we explained that the failure to submit a required element of the offense is harmless under the federal constitutional standard if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Alexandergreen2 sentences2002See State v. Alexander, 26 Or App 943 , 554 P2d 524 (1976) (holding, under a reasonable doubt standard, evidence insufficient to support commitment where the only evidence about dangerousness to self was that the allegedly mentally ill person once said she would like to be dead and another witness believed there would be a problem with suicide if the person lived alone); cf. State v. Brungard, 101 Or App 67 , 789 P2d 683 , mod on recons 102 Or App 509 (1990), rev den 311 Or 427 (1991) (upholding a commitment based on “rapid” changes to eating and sleeping patterns, intense social isolation, an 2002See State v. Alexander, 26 Or App 943 , 554 P2d 524 (1976) (holding, under a reasonable doubt standard, evidence insufficient to support commitment where the only evidence about dangerousness to self was that the allegedly mentally ill person once said she would like to be dead and another witness believed there would be a problem with suicide if the person lived alone); cf. State v. Brungard, 101 Or App 67 , 789 P2d 683 , mod on recons 102 Or App 509 (1990), rev den 311 Or 427 (1991) (upholding a commitment based on “rapid” changes to eating and sleeping patterns, intense social isolation, an | 1 | 2 |
Cage v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1998There, however, the court relied on Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), which was overruled by Victor . [3] For example, if Oregon passed a law that explicitly provided that a criminal defendant may be convicted by a preponderance of the evidence, that would be, per se, a violation of due process because the reasonable doubt standard is a fundamental right. 1998There, however, the court relied on Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), which was overruled by Victor . [3] For example, if Oregon passed a law that explicitly provided that a criminal defendant may be convicted by a preponderance of the evidence, that would be, per se, a violation of due process because the reasonable doubt standard is a fundamental right. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., State v. Robinson, [235 *207 Or 524, 528, 385 P2d 754 (1963)] (‘reasonable doubt’ is a term so commonly known and understood that it requires no embellishment); State of Oregon v. Monk, 199 Or 165, 193 , 260 P2d 474 (1953) (quoting People v. Klein, 305 Ill 141[, 137 NE 145 (1922),] that ‘[t]here is no more lucid definition of the term “reasonable doubt” than the term itself); State v. Morey, [ 25 Or 241, 257 , 35 P 655 (1894)] (reasonable doubt is within the comprehension of every person capable of understanding common English and further definition cannot make it plainer).” In this 1992If the instruction is correct as to the law and is not couched in phraseology which is, by chance, misleading, the court has committed no error in giving [the instruction].” State v. Robinson, supra, 235 Or at 527 Unless a reasonable doubt instruction misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required, the court will not find error. | 1 | 2 |
State of Oregon v. Monkgreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., State v. Monk, supra, 199 Or at 195 (although “[pjossibly nothing was gained by way of clarity through incorporating into the attacked instruction all of its terms,” the instruction was nonetheless adequate); State v. Morey, supra, 25 Or at 259 (upholding a reasonable doubt instruction where the disputed language was “subject to the criticism that it does not define, but needs defining,” because the instruction as a whole was not misleading). 1992See, e.g., State v. Monk, supra, 199 Or. at 195 , 260 P.2d 474 (although "[p]ossibly nothing was gained by way of clarity through incorporating into the attacked instruction all of its terms," the instruction was nonetheless adequate); State v. Morey, supra, 25 Or. at 259 , 35 P. 655 (upholding a reasonable doubt instruction where the disputed language was "subject to the criticism that it does not define, but needs defining," because the instruction as a whole was not misleading). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Moreygreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., State v. Monk, supra, 199 Or at 195 (although “[pjossibly nothing was gained by way of clarity through incorporating into the attacked instruction all of its terms,” the instruction was nonetheless adequate); State v. Morey, supra, 25 Or at 259 (upholding a reasonable doubt instruction where the disputed language was “subject to the criticism that it does not define, but needs defining,” because the instruction as a whole was not misleading). 1992See, e.g., State v. Monk, supra, 199 Or. at 195 , 260 P.2d 474 (although "[p]ossibly nothing was gained by way of clarity through incorporating into the attacked instruction all of its terms," the instruction was nonetheless adequate); State v. Morey, supra, 25 Or. at 259 , 35 P. 655 (upholding a reasonable doubt instruction where the disputed language was "subject to the criticism that it does not define, but needs defining," because the instruction as a whole was not misleading). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Burtongreen1 sentence2026See Burton, 373 Or at 759-60 (observing that a court’s exer- cise of discretion regarding control of jury argument may be informed by the defendant’s constitutional rights); State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 316-17 , 518 P3d 903 (2022) (conclud- ing that prosecutor’s argument incorrectly characterizing the reasonable doubt standard was improper); State v. Perez, 373 Or 591, 619 , 568 P3d 940 (2025) (Bushong, J., concur- ring) (explaining that a prosecutor’s comment suggesting that a defendant bears any burden, except where defendant has burden of proving affirmative defense, “undermines the presu | 1 | 1 |
| Maney v. Angelozzigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Braygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rosascogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stevensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beck v. Alabamagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mastriano v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cupp v. Naughtengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Montezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Charboneaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wagnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rose v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Burrowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vance v. Terrazasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| McKeiver v. Pennsylvaniagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2025The Supreme Court has explained that “[u]nless a reasonable doubt instruction mis- leads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required, the court will not find error.” State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 38 , 828 P2d 1006 , cert den, 506 US 858 (1992). 2025The Supreme Court has explained that “[u]nless a reasonable doubt instruction mis- leads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required, the court will not find error.” State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 38 , 828 P2d 1006 , cert den, 506 US 858 (1992). | 4 | 1992–2025 |
State v. Flores Ramos
green
2 sentences2023An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if “the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the ver- dict obtained.” State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 320 , 478 5 Throughout the trial, the state referred to the forcible compulsion rape as having occurred when D was in the seventh grade. 2023Petitioner’s reliance on Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 US 275 , 113 S Ct 2078 , 124 L Ed 182 (1993), is misplaced, because the holding in Sullivan—the only time the United States Supreme Court has held an instructional error to be structural error—“rested on the fact that an improper reasonable-doubt instruction ‘vitiates all the jury’s findings’ and produces ‘consequences that are necessarily unquanti- fiable and indeterminate.’ ” State v. Ramos, 367 Or 292, 301 , 478 P3d 515 (2020) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 11 , 119 S Ct 1827 , 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (emphasis in Neder)). | 3 | 2020–2023 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2025He remembered what he did because he chose to do it.” Later, near the end of rebuttal closing, after discussing the reasonable doubt standard, the prosecutor urged the jury not to “buy what [d]efendant is trying to sell you”; argued that defendant’s claim of “being asleep and not remembering” was “not reasonable” and that Cite as 339 Or App 590 (2025) 593 “[d]efendant chose to do what he did”; and urged the jury “to go back and deliberate and find him guilty.” Defendant contends that, by making those state- ments, the prosecutor improperly conveyed to the jury his own personal “opinion” that t 2025He remembered what he did because he chose to do it.” Later, near the end of rebuttal closing, after discussing the reasonable doubt standard, the prosecutor urged the jury not to “buy what [d]efendant is trying to sell you”; argued that defendant’s claim of “being asleep and not remembering” was “not reasonable” and that Cite as 339 Or App 590 (2025) 593 “[d]efendant chose to do what he did”; and urged the jury “to go back and deliberate and find him guilty.” Defendant contends that, by making those state- ments, the prosecutor improperly conveyed to the jury his own personal “opinion” that t | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Sandoval
green
2 sentences2025The burden of proof is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.” Cite as 344 Or App 535 (2025) 539 As mentioned, defendant requested a special instruction, relying on State v. Sandoval, 342 Or 506 , 156 P3d 60 (2007), that Oregon law contains no duty to retreat before using deadly force. 2025The burden of proof is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.” Cite as 344 Or App 535 (2025) 539 As mentioned, defendant requested a special instruction, relying on State v. Sandoval, 342 Or 506 , 156 P3d 60 (2007), that Oregon law contains no duty to retreat before using deadly force. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Cranston
green
2 sentences2025The burden of proof is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.” Cite as 344 Or App 535 (2025) 539 As mentioned, defendant requested a special instruction, relying on State v. Sandoval, 342 Or 506 , 156 P3d 60 (2007), that Oregon law contains no duty to retreat before using deadly force. 2025The burden of proof is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.” Cite as 344 Or App 535 (2025) 539 As mentioned, defendant requested a special instruction, relying on State v. Sandoval, 342 Or 506 , 156 P3d 60 (2007), that Oregon law contains no duty to retreat before using deadly force. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Sullivan v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2023Petitioner’s reliance on Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 US 275 , 113 S Ct 2078 , 124 L Ed 182 (1993), is misplaced, because the holding in Sullivan—the only time the United States Supreme Court has held an instructional error to be structural error—“rested on the fact that an improper reasonable-doubt instruction ‘vitiates all the jury’s findings’ and produces ‘consequences that are necessarily unquanti- fiable and indeterminate.’ ” State v. Ramos, 367 Or 292, 301 , 478 P3d 515 (2020) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 11 , 119 S Ct 1827 , 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (emphasis in Neder)). 2023Petitioner’s reliance on Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 US 275 , 113 S Ct 2078 , 124 L Ed 182 (1993), is misplaced, because the holding in Sullivan—the only time the United States Supreme Court has held an instructional error to be structural error—“rested on the fact that an improper reasonable-doubt instruction ‘vitiates all the jury’s findings’ and produces ‘consequences that are necessarily unquanti- fiable and indeterminate.’ ” State v. Ramos, 367 Or 292, 301 , 478 P3d 515 (2020) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 11 , 119 S Ct 1827 , 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (emphasis in Neder)). | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020But that does not mean that plain error review is appropriate; rather, it mili- tates against a conclusion that “the policies behind the gen- eral rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case,” Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6. 1993If the issue had been preserved at the trial level, however, failure to raise the issue in the Court of Appeals precludes review of the issue under ORAP 5.45(2) unless the error is one of law apparent on the face of the record. 10 State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), also is significant for its holding that ORAP 5.45(2) applies to appellate review in the Supreme Court when it is the first level of appellate review in the same way that it applies to the Court of Appeals and for its definition of the exception in ORAP 5.45(2) for review of unpreserved claims of errors of law app | 2 | 1993–2020 |
Patterson v. New York
green
2 sentences2006"Reaffirming its decision in Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), the McMillan Court reasoned that, `[w]hile there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go in this regard, the applicability of the reasonable doubt standard * * * has always been dependent on how a State defines the offense that is charged in any given case[.]' 477 U.S. at 85 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2006"Reaffirming its decision in Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), the McMillan Court reasoned that, `[w]hile there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go in this regard, the applicability of the reasonable doubt standard * * * has always been dependent on how a State defines the offense that is charged in any given case[.]' 477 U.S. at 85 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Rainey
green
2 sentences2000There ensued a description of the reasonable doubt standard, followed by the statement that “it is clear that significant constraints emerge when the prosecution seeks to rely on what has been labeled a statutory presumption against a criminal defendant.” Id. 2000The court then identified those “significant constraints.” First, “the trial court may not direct the jury to find a fact that is an element of the crime, even in the absence of rebutting evidence.” Id. | 2 | 1997–2000 |
State v. Perez
green
1 sentence2026See Burton, 373 Or at 759-60 (observing that a court’s exer- cise of discretion regarding control of jury argument may be informed by the defendant’s constitutional rights); State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 316-17 , 518 P3d 903 (2022) (conclud- ing that prosecutor’s argument incorrectly characterizing the reasonable doubt standard was improper); State v. Perez, 373 Or 591, 619 , 568 P3d 940 (2025) (Bushong, J., concur- ring) (explaining that a prosecutor’s comment suggesting that a defendant bears any burden, except where defendant has burden of proving affirmative defense, “undermines the presu | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10850324
neutral
1 sentence2026As to the third statement, we agree with defendant that, because there was evidence, in the form of defendant’s recorded statement to the investigating officer, that defen- dant did not punch the victim, it was inaccurate for the Nonprecedential Memo Op: 349 Or App 149 (2026) 153 prosecutor to argue that “[t]he evidence is uncontroverted that she hit him.” Defendant’s recorded statement denying that she had hit the victim was some evidence controvert- ing the victim’s testimony. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. McGovern
neutral
1 sentence2025“The burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.” The defense of property instruction that the court gave provided: Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 457 (2025) 461 instruction for legal error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Curtis v. United States green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. McNally
green
2 sentences2025State v. McNally, 361 Or 314, 320 , 392 P3d 721 (2017). 2025State v. McNally, 361 Or 314, 320 , 392 P3d 721 (2017). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Ramos v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| McDonnell v. Premo green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Johnson v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Vanornum green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Blakely v. Washington green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Brungard green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Brungard green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Matter of Lucas green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Victor v. Nebraska green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Tucker green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Jensen green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Pratt green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Brown v. Multnomah County District Court green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Klein green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Graniteville Manufacturing Co. v. Renew green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Jackson v. Virginia red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Walton green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Roberts green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Berger v. New York green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Seymour v. United States green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. McBride green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Naylor green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Mullaney v. Wilbur green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| California Ex Rel. Cooper v. Mitchell Brothers' Santa Ana Theater green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| O'Neill v. O'Neill green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.