66 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Van Hookgreen2 sentences2023Ross No. 21CA3749, 2021-Ohio-4039, ¶ 49-51 . {¶22} The standard of proof required to meet the corpus delicti rule “is not a demanding one.” State v. Van Hook, 39 Ohio St.3d 256, 261 , 530 N.E.2d 883 (1988). 2023Ross No. 21CA3749, 2021-Ohio-4039, ¶ 49-51 . {¶22} The standard of proof required to meet the corpus delicti rule “is not a demanding one.” State v. Van Hook, 39 Ohio St.3d 256, 261 , 530 N.E.2d 883 (1988). | 9 | 22 |
State v. Marandagreen2 sentences2023Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0026 15 {¶67} Appellant herein raises a corpus delicti challenge and argues that the only evidence presented at trial is video of Appellant placing the nude two-year old victim on a bed, moving his phone above her as if taking pictures, repositioning her on camera, walking into the room around the same time alone and naked, a nude photo of the two- year old victim found on Appellant’s phone, and Appellant’s confession. {¶68} The corpus delicti rule was explained by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Maranda, 94 Ohio St. 364 , 114 N.E.1038 (1916). 2023Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0026 15 {¶67} Appellant herein raises a corpus delicti challenge and argues that the only evidence presented at trial is video of Appellant placing the nude two-year old victim on a bed, moving his phone above her as if taking pictures, repositioning her on camera, walking into the room around the same time alone and naked, a nude photo of the two- year old victim found on Appellant’s phone, and Appellant’s confession. {¶68} The corpus delicti rule was explained by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Maranda, 94 Ohio St. 364 , 114 N.E.1038 (1916). | 5 | 17 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2024The Court has also explained that, in light of the myriad procedural protections granted to defendants in modern criminal practice, the corpus delicti rule is supported by few practical or social policy considerations and courts do not “apply it ‘with a dogmatic vengeance.’” Van Hook at 261 , quoting State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31, 35-36 (1976), vacated in part on other grounds, 438 U.S. 911 (1978). {¶51} The statute and elements for tampering with evidence are set forth above in our discussion of the first and third assignments of error, respectively. 2023In State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (1976), the Supreme Court of Ohio noted the historical origins of the corpus-delicti rule were designed to protect an accused from the admission of a confession where no crime has been committed. | 4 | 29 |
State v. Barkergreen2 sentences2016The corpus delicti rule is an evidentiary rule which requires “that before a defendant’s confession to an offense may be admitted at trial, some evidence must already have been admitted, independent of the confession, that tends to establish the corpus delicti of the offense.” State v. Barker, 191 Ohio App.3d 293 , 2010-Ohio-5744 , 945 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). 2016The corpus delicti rule is an evidentiary rule which requires “that before a defendant’s confession to an offense may be admitted at trial, some evidence must already have been admitted, independent of the confession, that tends to establish the corpus delicti of the offense.” State v. Barker, 191 Ohio App.3d 293 , 2010-Ohio-5744 , 945 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gabrielgreen2 sentences2010State v. Edwards (1976), 49 Ohio St.2d 31 , 3 O.O.3d 18 , 358 N.E.2d 1051 , at paragraph lb of the syllabus (“There must be some evidence in addition to a confession tending to establish the corpus delicti, before such confession is admissible”); see State v. Gabriel, 170 Ohio App.3d 393 , 2007-Ohio-794 , 867 N.E.2d 474, at ¶ 71 (To satisfy the corpus delicti rule “the state’s evidence * * * must ‘tend to prove’ ” the corpus delicti). 2010State v. Edwards (1976), 49 Ohio St.2d 31 , 3 O.O.3d 18 , 358 N.E.2d 1051 , at paragraph lb of the syllabus (“There must be some evidence in addition to a confession tending to establish the corpus delicti, before such confession is admissible”); see State v. Gabriel, 170 Ohio App.3d 393 , 2007-Ohio-794 , 867 N.E.2d 474, at ¶ 71 (To satisfy the corpus delicti rule “the state’s evidence * * * must ‘tend to prove’ ” the corpus delicti). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2014The corpus delicti rule is designed to protect “persons who confess to crimes that they not only did not commit themselves, but which were never committed by anyone.” State v. Nobles, 106 Ohio App.3d 246, 261 , 665 N.E.2d 1137 (2d Dist.1995). 2014The corpus delicti rule is designed to protect “persons who confess to crimes that they not only did not commit themselves, but which were never committed by anyone.” State v. Nobles, 106 Ohio App.3d 246, 261 , 665 N.E.2d 1137 (2d Dist.1995). | 1 | 11 |
State v. Blackgreen2 sentences2010The Ohio Supreme Court has said, however, that the corpus delicti rule is not to be applied “ ‘with a dogmatic vengeance,’ ” Gabriel at ¶ 58, quoting Edwards at 36, 3 O.O.3d 18 , 358 N.E.2d 1051 , as the court believes that the rule has “limited utility.” State v. Black (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 304, 308 , 8 O.O.3d 296 , 376 N.E.2d 948 , citing Edwards, at 35-36, 3 O.O.3d 18 , 358 N.E.2d 1051 (“Considering the revolution in criminal law of the 1960’s and the vast number of procedural safeguards protecting the due-process rights of criminal defendants, the corpus delicti rule is supported by few pr 2010The Ohio Supreme Court has said, however, that the corpus delicti rule is not to be applied “ ‘with a dogmatic vengeance,’ ” Gabriel at ¶ 58, quoting Edwards at 36, 3 O.O.3d 18 , 358 N.E.2d 1051 , as the court believes that the rule has “limited utility.” State v. Black (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 304, 308 , 8 O.O.3d 296 , 376 N.E.2d 948 , citing Edwards, at 35-36, 3 O.O.3d 18 , 358 N.E.2d 1051 (“Considering the revolution in criminal law of the 1960’s and the vast number of procedural safeguards protecting the due-process rights of criminal defendants, the corpus delicti rule is supported by few pr | 1 | 8 |
Jordan v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2024The Court has also explained that, in light of the myriad procedural protections granted to defendants in modern criminal practice, the corpus delicti rule is supported by few practical or social policy considerations and courts do not “apply it ‘with a dogmatic vengeance.’” Van Hook at 261 , quoting State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31, 35-36 (1976), vacated in part on other grounds, 438 U.S. 911 (1978). {¶51} The statute and elements for tampering with evidence are set forth above in our discussion of the first and third assignments of error, respectively. 2015Montgomery No. 25918, 2014-Ohio- 3164, ¶ 14. {¶ 101} “In light of the myriad procedural protections granted defendants in modern criminal practice, * * * ‘the corpus delicti rule is supported by few practical or social policy considerations.’ ” State v. Van Hook, 39 Ohio St.3d 256, 261 , 530 N.E.2d 883 (1988), quoting State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 , 358 N.E.2d 1051 (1976), vacated on other grounds, Edwards v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 911 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1155 (1978). | 1 | 8 |
State v. Sturgill, Unpublished Decision (12-6-2004)green2 sentences2018Clermont No. CA2004-02-008, 2004-Ohio-6481 , 2004 WL 2786021 , ¶ 9-10. {¶ 16} Flucas argues that the court violated the corpus delicti rule because no state's witnesses testified that they observed Flucas spit on CO Ruff prior to when the state admitted his confession. 2006In State v. Sturgill, Clermont App. No. CA2004-02-008, 2004-Ohio-6481 , at ¶ 7-10, the court discussed the corpus delicti rule, stating in relevant part: Before the state may introduce any alleged confession, the state must provide some evidence that a crime has occurred independent of the confession. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Lortz, 23762 (6-25-2008)green2 sentences2016Summit No. 23762, 2008-Ohio-3108, ¶ 11 . {¶8} As a threshold matter, the State urges us to conclude that Smith’s statement to Detective Morrison was not a “confession” for purposes of the corpus delicti rule in the first instance. 2014No. 23762, 2008-Ohio-3108, ¶ 11-13 (“the corpus delicti doctrine only involves the admissibility of a confession”); State v. Sibley, 9th Dist. | 1 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2023F. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶58} In his sixth assignment of error, Colonel contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to object to the admission of Colonel’s recorded Adams App. No. 23CA1168 27 confession of gross sexual imposition because it should have been barred under the corpus delicti rule; (2) failing to object to the “vouching” of the expert witness; (3) failing to object to hearsay statements E.V. made during the forensic interview; and (4) failing to object to the jury instructions. {¶59} To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a d 2023F. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶58} In his sixth assignment of error, Colonel contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to object to the admission of Colonel’s recorded Adams App. No. 23CA1168 27 confession of gross sexual imposition because it should have been barred under the corpus delicti rule; (2) failing to object to the “vouching” of the expert witness; (3) failing to object to hearsay statements E.V. made during the forensic interview; and (4) failing to object to the jury instructions. {¶59} To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a d | 1 | 2 |
State v. Alexandergreen1 sentence2024Applicable Law {¶48} “[T]he historical origins of the corpus-delicti rule were designed to protect an accused from the admission of a confession where no crime has been committed.” State v. Alexander, 2023-Ohio-123, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Joshua Rileygreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., United States v. Hilger, 728 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing state-court cases for the proposition that courts consistently have rejected application of the corpus-delicti rule in supervised- release revocation proceedings); United States v. Riley, 920 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that “the very description of the corroboration rule—an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession cannot alone support a criminal conviction—demonstrates that -5- the rule has no application to supervised release revocation proceedings”). {¶ 9} In any event, we have no occasion to decide wheth 2024See, e.g., United States v. Hilger, 728 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing state-court cases for the proposition that courts consistently have rejected application of the corpus-delicti rule in supervised- release revocation proceedings); United States v. Riley, 920 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that “the very description of the corroboration rule—an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession cannot alone support a criminal conviction—demonstrates that -5- the rule has no application to supervised release revocation proceedings”). {¶ 9} In any event, we have no occasion to decide wheth | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jeffrey Hilgergreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., United States v. Hilger, 728 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing state-court cases for the proposition that courts consistently have rejected application of the corpus-delicti rule in supervised- release revocation proceedings); United States v. Riley, 920 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that “the very description of the corroboration rule—an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession cannot alone support a criminal conviction—demonstrates that -5- the rule has no application to supervised release revocation proceedings”). {¶ 9} In any event, we have no occasion to decide wheth 2024See, e.g., United States v. Hilger, 728 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing state-court cases for the proposition that courts consistently have rejected application of the corpus-delicti rule in supervised- release revocation proceedings); United States v. Riley, 920 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that “the very description of the corroboration rule—an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession cannot alone support a criminal conviction—demonstrates that -5- the rule has no application to supervised release revocation proceedings”). {¶ 9} In any event, we have no occasion to decide wheth | 1 | 1 |
Columbus v. Glovergreen2 sentences2023See City of Columbus v. Glover, 107 Ohio App. 107, 109 , 154 N.E.2d 91 (10th Dist.1958) (observing that defendant’s statements “were not formal confessions admitting the commission of a crime, but were admissions against interest, which when taken with other testimony in the case, were fully adequate to sustain the verdict of guilty”); Klumpp at 770 (concluding that admission of defendant’s written statements did not constitute a confession implicating the corpus delicti rule, describing them as “no more than admissions of a party opponent,” which were admissible). {¶ 19} Because Greer’s state 2023See City of Columbus v. Glover, 107 Ohio App. 107, 109 , 154 N.E.2d 91 (10th Dist.1958) (observing that defendant’s statements “were not formal confessions admitting the commission of a crime, but were admissions against interest, which when taken with other testimony in the case, were fully adequate to sustain the verdict of guilty”); Klumpp at 770 (concluding that admission of defendant’s written statements did not constitute a confession implicating the corpus delicti rule, describing them as “no more than admissions of a party opponent,” which were admissible). {¶ 19} Because Greer’s state | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Massie, Unpublished Decision (4-8-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hudsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Haynesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hopfer
green
2 sentences2024Id., citing State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521, 561 , 679 N.E .2d 321 (2d Dist. 1996). {¶ 39} In this case, Casey died of a drug overdose and had several drugs in his system, including cocaine, at the time of his death. 2023An “admission” is “any statement made by a party in his individual capacity and offered against that party at trial.” State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 , 538–39, 679 N.E.2d 321 (2d Dist.1996), citing Evid.R. 801. | 5 | 2007–2024 |
State v. Cook
green
2 sentences2023“This court has stated that the ‘corpus delicti’ of a crime is ‘the body or substance of the crime and usually [has] two Adams App. No. 23CA1168 10 elements: (1) the act itself, and (2) the criminal agency of the act.’ ” State v. Cook, 128 Ohio St.3d 120 , 2010-Ohio-6305 , 942 N.E.2d 357 , ¶ 23. [T]he Supreme Court of Ohio noted the historical origins of the corpus delicti rule were designed to protect an accused from being convicted of a crime that never occurred. 2023“This court has stated that the ‘corpus delicti’ of a crime is ‘the body or substance of the crime and usually [has] two Adams App. No. 23CA1168 10 elements: (1) the act itself, and (2) the criminal agency of the act.’ ” State v. Cook, 128 Ohio St.3d 120 , 2010-Ohio-6305 , 942 N.E.2d 357 , ¶ 23. [T]he Supreme Court of Ohio noted the historical origins of the corpus delicti rule were designed to protect an accused from being convicted of a crime that never occurred. | 3 | 2018–2023 |
State v. Nicely
green
2 sentences2013Maranda at 371, 114 N.E. 1038 ; State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 154-155 , 529 N.E.2d 1236 Washington App. No. 12CA14 17 (1988); State v. Clark, 106 Ohio App.3d 426, 431 , 666 N.E.2d 308 (1995). {¶28} In Edwards, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted the historical origins of the corpus delicti rule were designed to protect an accused from being convicted of a crime that never occurred. 2013Maranda at 371, 114 N.E. 1038 ; State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 154-155 , 529 N.E.2d 1236 Washington App. No. 12CA14 17 (1988); State v. Clark, 106 Ohio App.3d 426, 431 , 666 N.E.2d 308 (1995). {¶28} In Edwards, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted the historical origins of the corpus delicti rule were designed to protect an accused from being convicted of a crime that never occurred. | 3 | 2009–2014 |
State v. Ashe
green
2 sentences2024Montgomery No. 26528, 2016-Ohio-136, ¶ 9 , quoting State v. Barker, 191 Ohio App.3d 293 , 2010- Ohio-5744, 945 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.); see also State v. Zanders, 9th Dist. 2020Montgomery No. 26528, 2016-Ohio-136, at ¶ 9 , and is satisfied by “a rather low” evidentiary standard. | 2 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Edinger, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2006)
green
2 sentences2010We concluded that the totality of the facts and inferences constituted some evidence to establish the corpus delicti. {¶ 19} In State v. Edinger, Franklin App. No. 05AP-31, 2006-Ohio-1527 , the court considered the corpus delicti rule under facts similar to those in the case at bar. 2010We concluded that the totality of the facts and inferences constituted some evidence to establish the corpus delicti. {¶ 19} In State v. Edinger, Franklin App. No. 05AP-31, 2006-Ohio-1527 , 2006 WL 827412 , the court considered the corpus delicti rule under facts similar to those in the case at bar. | 2 | 2010–2018 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2013Maranda at 371, 114 N.E. 1038 ; State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 154-155 , 529 N.E.2d 1236 Washington App. No. 12CA14 17 (1988); State v. Clark, 106 Ohio App.3d 426, 431 , 666 N.E.2d 308 (1995). {¶28} In Edwards, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted the historical origins of the corpus delicti rule were designed to protect an accused from being convicted of a crime that never occurred. 2013Maranda at 371, 114 N.E. 1038 ; State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 154-155 , 529 N.E.2d 1236 Washington App. No. 12CA14 17 (1988); State v. Clark, 106 Ohio App.3d 426, 431 , 666 N.E.2d 308 (1995). {¶28} In Edwards, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted the historical origins of the corpus delicti rule were designed to protect an accused from being convicted of a crime that never occurred. | 2 | 2009–2013 |
State v. Hofer, 07ca835 (1-22-2008)
neutral
2 sentences2010State v. Hofer, Adams App. No. 07CA835, 2008-Ohio-242, ¶ 36 ; see, also, State v. Haynes (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 31, 34 , 719 N.E.2d 576 . 2009The court found that such evidence satisfied the corpus delicti requirement for the rape charge. {¶ 37} We recently considered Ledford when addressing a similar argument in Hofer , supra. There, the defendant argued that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to the admission of his confession on the basis that the state had failed to produce any substantive evidence of the corpus delicti of the crime where he was charged with performing cunnilingus on a two-year-old girl. | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Cook
green
2 sentences2024“Hindsight is not permitted to distort the assessment of what was reasonable in light of counsel’s perspective at the time.” State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 524-525 , 605 N.E.2d 70 (1992). {¶ 38} Related to Harris’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument, we will first consider the corpus delicti rule. 2024“Hindsight is not permitted to distort the assessment of what was reasonable in light of counsel’s perspective at the time.” State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 524-525 , 605 N.E.2d 70 (1992). {¶ 38} Related to Harris’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument, we will first consider the corpus delicti rule. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Criminal Sentencing Cases
green
2 sentences2024Ashe at ¶ 9, citing State v. Gabriel, 170 Ohio App.3d 393 , 2007-Ohio-794 , 867 N.E.2d 474, ¶ 58 (2d Dist.), reversed on other grounds, In re Criminal Sentencing Cases, 116 Ohio St.3d 31 , 2007-Ohio-5551 , 876 N.E.2d 528 . 2024Ashe at ¶ 9, citing State v. Gabriel, 170 Ohio App.3d 393 , 2007-Ohio-794 , 867 N.E.2d 474, ¶ 58 (2d Dist.), reversed on other grounds, In re Criminal Sentencing Cases, 116 Ohio St.3d 31 , 2007-Ohio-5551 , 876 N.E.2d 528 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Short
green
2 sentences2023F. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶58} In his sixth assignment of error, Colonel contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to object to the admission of Colonel’s recorded Adams App. No. 23CA1168 27 confession of gross sexual imposition because it should have been barred under the corpus delicti rule; (2) failing to object to the “vouching” of the expert witness; (3) failing to object to hearsay statements E.V. made during the forensic interview; and (4) failing to object to the jury instructions. {¶59} To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a d 2023F. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶58} In his sixth assignment of error, Colonel contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to object to the admission of Colonel’s recorded Adams App. No. 23CA1168 27 confession of gross sexual imposition because it should have been barred under the corpus delicti rule; (2) failing to object to the “vouching” of the expert witness; (3) failing to object to hearsay statements E.V. made during the forensic interview; and (4) failing to object to the jury instructions. {¶59} To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a d | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Cutright
green
1 sentence2023Ross No. 21CA3749, 2021-Ohio-4039, ¶ 49-51 . {¶22} The standard of proof required to meet the corpus delicti rule “is not a demanding one.” State v. Van Hook, 39 Ohio St.3d 256, 261 , 530 N.E.2d 883 (1988). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2022Hamilton No. C-210519, 2022-Ohio-2218, ¶ 14 . {¶18} Klosterman argues that his admission via email that he visited the Steiner properties is inadmissible under the corpus-delicti rule because no other evidence exists outside of his “confession” to show that he did, in fact, visit the properties on November 2, in violation of the protection order. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Marshall, Unpublished Decision (1-9-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2022No. 2005CA00052, 2006-Ohio-83, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Andy A. Shinnock v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2019Id. {¶26} In this matter, Turner was convicted of “knowingly engag[ing] in sexual conduct with an animal” in violation of R.C. 959.21(B). 2019Id. {¶26} In this matter, Turner was convicted of "knowingly engag[ing] in sexual conduct with an animal" in violation of R.C. 959.21(B). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re M.W.
neutral
2 sentences2019Licking No. 2018 CA 0021, 2018-Ohio-5227, ¶ 32 , citing State v. Smith, 7th Dist. 2019Licking No. 2018 CA 0021, 2018-Ohio-5227 , 2018 WL 6787946 , ¶ 32, citing State v. Smith , 7th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Bradley green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Blodgett v. Kah neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Sibley, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2007) neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Puckett green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Kraft, C-060238 (5-11-2007) green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Hafford green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Lucas green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Parker green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Francis Noboru Yoshida green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Shannon, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004) green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Bridgeman green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Martin green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Sage green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Gerard Joseph Palazzolo v. David G. Gorcyca, Oakland County Prosecutor green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Manago green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| United States v. Gillam Kerley green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Jenks red | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Scott green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Dudley green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| United States v. Algylee Bobbe Wilson green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| United States v. Jimmy Victor Abigando green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Seidenbach's v. Bland Terry Shoe Corp. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Tillman green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.