Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
68 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mart v. Hillgreen2 sentences2008Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987). 2007Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987). | 4 | 4 |
Rosell v. Escogreen2 sentences2016The trial court manifestly erred in failing to make provisions for visitation of the [Ajppellees that fall on/ near a holiday, J^STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review utilized in this matter was discussed in Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577, pp. 6-7 (La.2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, 735 , as follows: It is well-settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). 2015STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to the instant matter is as follows: A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence of “ ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong.’ ” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). | 2 | 9 |
Stobart v. State Through DOTDgreen2 sentences2001STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for appellate courts was ideally articulated in Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993): A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). 2001STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for appellate courts was ideally articulated in Stobart v. State through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993): A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is clearly wrong.” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Captvillegreen2 sentences2014STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 170 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221 , 127 S.Ct. 1279 , 167 L.Ed.2d 100 (2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). 2010STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 170 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221 , 127 S.Ct. 1279 , 167 L.Ed.2d 100 (2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La.1984)). | 2 | 3 |
Hatcher v. Rousegreen2 sentences2020App. 4 Cir. 2/1/17), 211 So.3d 431, 433 (citation omitted). 2020Hatcher v. Rouse, 2016-0666, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/1/17), 211 So.3d 431, 433 . | 1 | 2 |
Evans v. Lungringreen2 sentences2017See also Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731 . 2016The trial court manifestly erred in failing to make provisions for visitation of the [Ajppellees that fall on/ near a holiday, J^STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review utilized in this matter was discussed in Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577, pp. 6-7 (La.2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, 735 , as follows: It is well-settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). | 1 | 2 |
| Cosse v. Allen-Bradley Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Brooks v. Wileygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Midland Funding LLC v. Kellygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anthony v. Davis Lumbergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Phoenix Assur. Co. of NY v. Shell Oil Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Pogo Producing Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| West v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Concordia College Corp. v. W. R. Grace & Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Darulis v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jordan v. INTERCONTINENTAL BULTANK CORP.green | 1 | 1 |
| Jordan v. Intercontinental Bulktank Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bruno v. Harbert Intern. Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Banks v. Indus. Roofing & Sheet Metal
green
2 sentences2003STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applied in workers’ compensation matters is set out in Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840, pp. 7-8 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 551 , 556: Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review. 2002STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a workers' compensation hearing was set out in Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840, pp. 7-8 (La.7/1/97); 696 So.2d 551 , 556 as follows: Factual findings in workers' compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. | 7 | 2002–2014 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2015STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for an insufficient evidence claim is well-settled: In State v. Bryant, 12-233 (La.10/16/12), 101 So.3d 429 , the Louisiana [S]upreme [C]ourt addressed the sufficiency of the evidence claims, reiterating that the appellate review of such claims is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2015STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for an insufficient evidence claim is well-settled: In State v. Bryant, 12-233 (La.10/16/12), 101 So.3d 429 , the Louisiana [S]upreme [C]ourt addressed the sufficiency of the evidence claims, reiterating that the appellate review of such claims is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). | 5 | 2005–2015 |
Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater
green
2 sentences2003Smith v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corrections, 93-1305, p. 4 (La.2/28/94), 633 So.2d 129, 132 ; Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530, pp. 4-5 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 733, 737-38 . 1996STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for fact review in workers' compensation cases is provided in Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530, p. 4 (La. 1/14/94); 630 So.2d 733 , 737: In a workers' compensation case, as in other cases, the appellate court's review is governed by the manifest error or clearly wrong standard. | 5 | 1996–2003 |
Seal v. Gaylord Container Corp.
green
2 sentences2003I .STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for reviewing workers’ compensation cases was summarized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Seal v. Gaylord Container Corp., 97-0688, pp. 4-5 (La.12/02/97), 704 So.2d 1161, 1164 , as follows: Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review. 2003He asks this court to reform or amend the judgment to specify these items. |,.STANDARP OF REVIEW The standard for reviewing workers’ compensation cases was summarized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Seal v. Gaylord Container Corp., 97-0688, pp. 4-5 (La.12/02/97), 704 So.2d 1161, 1164 , as follows: Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review. | 5 | 2001–2003 |
Smith v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections
green
2 sentences2003Smith v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corrections, 93-1305, p. 4 (La.2/28/94), 633 So.2d 129, 132 ; Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530, pp. 4-5 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 733, 737-38 . 2002Smith v. Louisiana Dep't of Corrections, 93-1305, p. 4 (La.2/28/94), 633 So.2d 129, 132 ; Freeman v. Poulon/Weed Eater, 93-1530, pp. 4-5 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 733, 737-38 . | 4 | 2002–2003 |
King v. Caddo Parish Com'n
green
2 sentences2021King v. Caddo Parish Commission, 97– 1873 (La.10/20/98), 719 So.2d 410 . 2015King v. Caddo Parish Commission, 97-1873 (La.10/20/98), 719 So.2d 410 . | 2 | 2015–2021 |
Toups v. City of Shreveport
green
2 sentences2021STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in zoning disputes was set forth in Toups v. City of Shreveport, 10-1559, pp. 3-4 (La. 3/15/11), 60 So.3d 1215, 1217-18 , as follows: Because zoning falls under the jurisdiction of the legislature, courts will not interfere with their prerogative unless the action is palpably erroneous and without any substantial relation to the public health, safety, or general welfare. 2015STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in zoning disputes was set forth in Toups v. City of Shreveport, 2010-1559, pp. 3-4 (La.3/15/11), 60 So.3d 1215, 1217-18 , as follows: Because zoning falls under the jurisdiction of the legislature, courts will not interfere with their prerogative unless the action is palpably erroneous and without any substantial relation to the public health, safety, or general welfare. | 2 | 2015–2021 |
Leger v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2014STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 170 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221 , 127 S.Ct. 1279 , 167 L.Ed.2d 100 (2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). 2014STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 170 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221 , 127 S.Ct. 1279 , 167 L.Ed.2d 100 (2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). | 2 | 2010–2014 |
State v. Leger
green
2 sentences2014STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 170 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221 , 127 S.Ct. 1279 , 167 L.Ed.2d 100 (2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). 2010STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 170 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221 , 127 S.Ct. 1279 , 167 L.Ed.2d 100 (2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La.1984)). | 2 | 2010–2014 |
Breaux v. Béné
green
2 sentences2012Breaux v. Bene, 95-1004 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/15/95), 664 So.2d 1377, 1380 . 2012Breaux v. Bene, 95-1004 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/15/95), 664 So.2d 1377, 1379 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cummings, 95-1377 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1132 ; State v. Hunter, 33,066 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 687 , writs denied, 00-3070 (La.10/26/01), 799 So.2d 1150 , 01-2087 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 424 . 2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cummings, 95-1377 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1132 ; State v. Hunter, 33,066 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 687 , writs denied, 00-3070 (La.10/26/01), 799 So.3d 1150 , 01-2087 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 424 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State ex rel. Hunter v. State
green
2 sentences2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cummings, 95-1377 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1132 ; State v. Hunter, 33,066 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 687 , writs denied, 00-3070 (La.10/26/01), 799 So.2d 1150 , 01-2087 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 424 . 2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cummings, 95-1377 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1132 ; State v. Hunter, 33,066 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 687 , writs denied, 00-3070 (La.10/26/01), 799 So.3d 1150 , 01-2087 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 424 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Cummings
green
2 sentences2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cummings, 95-1377 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1132 ; State v. Hunter, 33,066 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 687 , writs denied, 00-3070 (La.10/26/01), 799 So.2d 1150 , 01-2087 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 424 . 2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cummings, 95-1377 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1132 ; State v. Hunter, 33,066 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 687 , writs denied, 00-3070 (La.10/26/01), 799 So.3d 1150 , 01-2087 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 424 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Hayes Fund for the First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-Mcgee Rocky Mountain, LLC
green
2 sentences2026To reverse a trial court’s finding of fact, “there must be no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion, and the finding must be clearly wrong.” Id. at 1116 . 2026STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review of factual determinations is the manifest error-clearly rental wrong standard, which “precludes the setting aside of a trial court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.” Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr- McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 14-2592, p. 8 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So.3d 1110, 1115 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Foster v. Rabalais Masonry, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable in workers' compensation cases was discussed by this court in Foster v. Rabalais Masonry, Inc. , 01-1394, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/02), 811 So.2d 1160 , 1162, writ denied , 02-1164 (La. 6/14/02), 818 So.2d 784 (citations omitted), as follows: "Factual findings in workers' compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Foster v. Rabalais Masonry, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable in workers' compensation cases was discussed by this court in Foster v. Rabalais Masonry, Inc. , 01-1394, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/02), 811 So.2d 1160 , 1162, writ denied , 02-1164 (La. 6/14/02), 818 So.2d 784 (citations omitted), as follows: "Factual findings in workers' compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bergeron v. Clark
green
1 sentence2017STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for the appellate court in child custody cases has been well-established by this court, as stated in Hawthorne v. Hawthorne, 96-89, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/22/96), 676 So.2d 619, 625 , writ denied, 96-1650 (La. 10/25/96), 681 So.2d 365 , “The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the best 1¡¡interest of the child from its observances of the parties and witnesses; thus, a tidal court’s determination in a child custody case is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Further, “[e | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bergeron v. Clark
green
1 sentence2017STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for the appellate court in child custody cases has been well-established by this court, as stated in Hawthorne v. Hawthorne, 96-89, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/22/96), 676 So.2d 619, 625 , writ denied, 96-1650 (La. 10/25/96), 681 So.2d 365 , “The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the best 1¡¡interest of the child from its observances of the parties and witnesses; thus, a tidal court’s determination in a child custody case is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Further, “[e | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hawthorne v. Hawthorne
green
1 sentence2017STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for the appellate court in child custody cases has been well-established by this court, as stated in Hawthorne v. Hawthorne, 96-89, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/22/96), 676 So.2d 619, 625 , writ denied, 96-1650 (La. 10/25/96), 681 So.2d 365 , “The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the best 1¡¡interest of the child from its observances of the parties and witnesses; thus, a tidal court’s determination in a child custody case is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Further, “[e | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hawthorne v. Hawthorne
green
1 sentence2017STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for the appellate court in child custody cases has been well-established by this court, as stated in Hawthorne v. Hawthorne, 96-89, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/22/96), 676 So.2d 619, 625 , writ denied, 96-1650 (La. 10/25/96), 681 So.2d 365 , “The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the best 1¡¡interest of the child from its observances of the parties and witnesses; thus, a tidal court’s determination in a child custody case is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Further, “[e | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Succession of Sporl
green
1 sentence2016Succession of Sporl, 2004-1373, p. 4 (La.App, 4 Cir. 4/6/05), 900 So.2d 1054, 1058 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Batiste
green
1 sentence2016App 4 Cir. 12/20/06), 947 So.2d 810 , 820-821: An appellate court reviewing a claim of excessive sentence must determine whether the trial court adequately complied with the statutory guidelines in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, as well as whether the facts of the case warrant the sentence imposed. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dietz v. Dietz
neutral
1 sentence2016STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review we are bound to employ was recently reiterated by this court in Dietz v. Dietz, 14-1164, pp. 19-20 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/15) , 165 So.3d 342, 357-58 , writ denied, 15-1504 (La.10/23/15), 179 So.3d 604 : It is well settled that a trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed on appeal pursuant to the manifest error—clearly wrong standard of review. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Navarro v. Bellemeade Apartments of Louisiana
neutral
1 sentence2016STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review we are bound to employ was recently reiterated by this court in Dietz v. Dietz, 14-1164, pp. 19-20 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/15) , 165 So.3d 342, 357-58 , writ denied, 15-1504 (La.10/23/15), 179 So.3d 604 : It is well settled that a trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed on appeal pursuant to the manifest error—clearly wrong standard of review. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re HMM neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In the Matter of Succession of Brantley green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Ryback v. Belle neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Guidry v. One Source Facility Services green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Verberne v. Verberne green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Batiste v. Webre green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Bryant green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Igbokwe v. Moser green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Mathieu v. New Orleans Public Library green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Bannister v. Dept. of Streets green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Housley v. Cerise green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Hall green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Dean v. Southmark Const. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| GC Services Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Supervisors neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Conrad green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.