invited error (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

invited error in Maryland

8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland 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.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
Allen v. Stategreen
mdctspecapp · 1991 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1999–2014
2 sentences

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

24
Klauenberg v. Stategreen
md · 1999 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2010–2014
2 sentences

2014Invited error Nevertheless, the State contends that Mr. Smith “invited” the court’s error when he did not correct “a factual misstatement by the prosecutor.” Under the “invited error” doctrine, “ ‘a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit—mistrial or reversal—from that error.’” State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 575 , 3 A.3d 1210 (2010) (quoting Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 544 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999)).

2014Invited error Nevertheless, the State contends that Mr. Smith “invited” the court’s error when he did not correct “a factual misstatement by the prosecutor.” Under the “invited error” doctrine, “ ‘a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit—mistrial or reversal—from that error.’” State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 575 , 3 A.3d 1210 (2010) (quoting Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 544 , 735 A.2d 1061 (1999)).

12
Murdock v. Stategreen
mdctspecapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014See Murdock v. State, 175 Md.App. 267 , 294 n. 8, 927 A.2d 53 (2007).

2014See Murdock v. State, 175 Md.App. 267 , 294 n. 8, 927 A.2d 53 (2007).

11
United States v. Brannangreen
ca11 · 2009 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010“The doctrine stems from the common sense view that where a party invites the trial court to commit error, he cannot later cry foul on appeal.” United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir.2009).

11
United States v. Olanogreen
scotus · 1993 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010In United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.1997), on en banc review of a claim that Olano had overruled the invited error doctrine as the doctrine had been applied to jury instructions specifically requested by the defendant, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated: The issue we resolve today is the viability of this circuit’s “invited error” doctrine following the Supreme court’s decision in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

2010In United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.1997), on en banc review of a claim that Olano had overruled the invited error doctrine as the doctrine had been applied to jury instructions specifically requested by the defendant, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated: The issue we resolve today is the viability of this circuit’s “invited error” doctrine following the Supreme court’s decision in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

11
Hammersla v. Stategreen
mdctspecapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See Hammersla v. State, 184 Md.App. 295, 308 , 965 A.2d 912 (2009) (“A defendant who creates error cannot obtain a benefit—a mistrial or reversal—from that error.” (Citations omitted)); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991) (“ ‘Invited error’ is the shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit— mistrial or reversal—from that error.” (Citations omitted)).

2009See Hammersla v. State, 184 Md.App. 295, 308 , 965 A.2d 912 (2009) (“A defendant who creates error cannot obtain a benefit—a mistrial or reversal—from that error.” (Citations omitted)); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991) (“ ‘Invited error’ is the shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit— mistrial or reversal—from that error.” (Citations omitted)).

11
Sanville v. Stategreen
wyo · 1979 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999See Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43 , 597 A.2d 489, 498 (1991) (“ ‘Invited error’ is the shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit— mistrial or reversal—from that error.”), cert. denied, 325 Md. 396 , 601 A.2d 129 (1992); see also, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir.1975) (“Sometimes called the doctrine of invited error, the accepted rule is that where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable directly to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible e

1999See Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43 , 597 A.2d 489, 498 (1991) (“ ‘Invited error’ is the shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit— mistrial or reversal—from that error.”), cert. denied, 325 Md. 396 , 601 A.2d 129 (1992); see also, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir.1975) (“Sometimes called the doctrine of invited error, the accepted rule is that where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable directly to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible e

11
McCall v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999See Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43 , 597 A.2d 489, 498 (1991) (“ ‘Invited error’ is the shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit— mistrial or reversal—from that error.”), cert. denied, 325 Md. 396 , 601 A.2d 129 (1992); see also, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir.1975) (“Sometimes called the doctrine of invited error, the accepted rule is that where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable directly to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible e

1999See Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43 , 597 A.2d 489, 498 (1991) (“ ‘Invited error’ is the shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit— mistrial or reversal—from that error.”), cert. denied, 325 Md. 396 , 601 A.2d 129 (1992); see also, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir.1975) (“Sometimes called the doctrine of invited error, the accepted rule is that where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable directly to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible e

11
United States v. Harold James Taylor and Woodrow Huntergreen
ca5 · 1975 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999See Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43 , 597 A.2d 489, 498 (1991) (“ ‘Invited error’ is the shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit— mistrial or reversal—from that error.”), cert. denied, 325 Md. 396 , 601 A.2d 129 (1992); see also, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir.1975) (“Sometimes called the doctrine of invited error, the accepted rule is that where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable directly to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible e

1999See Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43 , 597 A.2d 489, 498 (1991) (“ ‘Invited error’ is the shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a benefit— mistrial or reversal—from that error.”), cert. denied, 325 Md. 396 , 601 A.2d 129 (1992); see also, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir.1975) (“Sometimes called the doctrine of invited error, the accepted rule is that where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable directly to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible e

11
Tracy v. Stategreen
md · 1990 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991See, e.g., Tracy v. State, 319 Md. 452, 458 , 573 A.2d 38 (1990); Reed v. State, 78 Md.App. 522, 536 , 554 A.2d 420 (1989).

1991See, e.g., Tracy v. State, 319 Md. 452, 458 , 573 A.2d 38 (1990); Reed v. State, 78 Md.App. 522, 536 , 554 A.2d 420 (1989).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Rich green
md · 2010
2 sentences

2023The Invited Error Doctrine In terms of the preservation issue, the case was a classic instance of what the Court of Appeals in State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 575 , 3 A.3d 1210 (2010) referred to as “invited error”: [B]ecause the manslaughter instruction was specifically requested by Respondent’s trial counsel, the doctrine of invited error is applicable to his argument that “the instructional error materially affected his right to a fair and impartial trial.” The “invited error” doctrine is a shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a bene

2023The Invited Error Doctrine In terms of the preservation issue, the case was a classic instance of what the Court of Appeals in State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 575 , 3 A.3d 1210 (2010) referred to as “invited error”: [B]ecause the manslaughter instruction was specifically requested by Respondent’s trial counsel, the doctrine of invited error is applicable to his argument that “the instructional error materially affected his right to a fair and impartial trial.” The “invited error” doctrine is a shorthand term for the concept that a defendant who himself invites or creates error cannot obtain a bene

32012–2023
Olson v. State green
mdctspecapp · 2012
2 sentences

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

12014–2014
Ruth v. State green
mdctspecapp · 2000
2 sentences

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

12014–2014
THOMAS LEE SWIFT v. State green
md · 2012
2 sentences

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

12014–2014
Wimbish v. State green
mdctspecapp · 2011
2 sentences

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

2014For example, our courts have *702 applied the invited error doctrine correctly where the alleged error arose from jury instructions the appellant requested, see id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 ; Olson v. State, 208 Md.App. 309, 363-66 , 56 A.3d 576 (2012), cert. denied, 430 Md. 646 , 62 A.3d 731 (2013); Wimbish v. State, 201 Md.App. 239, 264-65 , 29 A.3d 635 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 293 , 35 A.3d 489 (2012), from the appellant’s own jury tampering, see Ruth v. State, 133 Md.App. 358, 370-74 , 757 A.2d 152 (2000); Allen v. State, 89 Md.App. 25, 43-45 , 597 A.2d 489 (1991), or testimony the appell

12014–2014
State v. Studd green
wash · 1999
1 sentence

2012In Rich, noting that the invited error doctrine “is applicable to appellate review of jury instructions specifically requested by the criminal defendant’s counsel,” id. at 575, 3 A.3d 1210 (citations omitted), and that “[a] party may not request an instruction and later complain on appeal that the requested instruction was given,” id. (quoting State v. Studd, 137 Wash.2d 533, 546 , 973 P.2d 1049 (1999)), the Court of Appeals held: when [Rich's] trial counsel (1) argued that the issue of voluntary manslaughter was generated by the evidence, and (2) made a specific request for a voluntary mansla

12012–2012
State v. Studd green
wash · 1999
2 sentences

2012In Rich, noting that the invited error doctrine “is applicable to appellate review of jury instructions specifically requested by the criminal defendant’s counsel,” id. at 575, 3 A.3d 1210 (citations omitted), and that “[a] party may not request an instruction and later complain on appeal that the requested instruction was given,” id. (quoting State v. Studd, 137 Wash.2d 533, 546 , 973 P.2d 1049 (1999)), the Court of Appeals held: when [Rich's] trial counsel (1) argued that the issue of voluntary manslaughter was generated by the evidence, and (2) made a specific request for a voluntary mansla

2012Id. at 581 , 3 A.3d 1210 .

12012–2012
Puckett v. United States green
scotus · 2009
2 sentences

2010In Puckett v. United States, — U.S.—, 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009), the United States Supreme Court stated: We explained in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), that Rule 52(b) review-so-called “plain-error review”—involves four steps, or prongs.

2010In Puckett v. United States, — U.S.—, 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009), the United States Supreme Court stated: We explained in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), that Rule 52(b) review-so-called “plain-error review”—involves four steps, or prongs.

12010–2010
In Re the Personal Restraint of Hagler green
wash · 1982
2 sentences

2010We reached this conclusion despite the fact that “the unconstitutional instruction was standard in this state, In re Hagler, 97 Wash.2d 818, 819 , 650 P.2d 1103 (1982), and had been expressly approved by this court.” Griffith, 102 Wash.2d at 104, 683 P.2d 194 [J Id. at 1055-56.

2010We reached this conclusion despite the fact that “the unconstitutional instruction was standard in this state, In re Hagler, 97 Wash.2d 818, 819 , 650 P.2d 1103 (1982), and had been expressly approved by this court.” Griffith, 102 Wash.2d at 104, 683 P.2d 194 [J Id. at 1055-56.

12010–2010
In Re the Personal Restraint of Griffith green
wash · 1984
1 sentence

2010We reached this conclusion despite the fact that “the unconstitutional instruction was standard in this state, In re Hagler, 97 Wash.2d 818, 819 , 650 P.2d 1103 (1982), and had been expressly approved by this court.” Griffith, 102 Wash.2d at 104, 683 P.2d 194 [J Id. at 1055-56.

12010–2010
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louise Han PEREZ; Joseph Eclavea Perez; John Velasco Cruz, Defendants-Appellants green
ca9 · 1997
1 sentence

2010In United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.1997), on en banc review of a claim that Olano had overruled the invited error doctrine as the doctrine had been applied to jury instructions specifically requested by the defendant, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated: The issue we resolve today is the viability of this circuit’s “invited error” doctrine following the Supreme court’s decision in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

12010–2010
State v. Nievas green
ohioctapp · 1997
1 sentence

2010“Under the invited-error doctrine,” it reasoned, “a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced the trial court to make.” Id.

12010–2010
Reed v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1989
2 sentences

1991See, e.g., Tracy v. State, 319 Md. 452, 458 , 573 A.2d 38 (1990); Reed v. State, 78 Md.App. 522, 536 , 554 A.2d 420 (1989).

1991See, e.g., Tracy v. State, 319 Md. 452, 458 , 573 A.2d 38 (1990); Reed v. State, 78 Md.App. 522, 536 , 554 A.2d 420 (1989).

11991–1991
Wernsing v. General Motors Corp. green
md · 1984
2 sentences

1991It is well established in Maryland that in determining whether jury contact is prejudicial, a trial court must balance the “probability of prejudice from the face of the extraneous matter in relation to the circumstances of the particular case.” Harford Sands, Inc. v. Groft, 320 Md. 136, 138-39 , 577 A.2d 7 (1990) (quoting Wernsing v. General Motors Corp., 298 Md. 406, 411 , 470 A.2d 802 (1984)).

1991It is well established in Maryland that in determining whether jury contact is prejudicial, a trial court must balance the “probability of prejudice from the face of the extraneous matter in relation to the circumstances of the particular case.” Harford Sands, Inc. v. Groft, 320 Md. 136, 138-39 , 577 A.2d 7 (1990) (quoting Wernsing v. General Motors Corp., 298 Md. 406, 411 , 470 A.2d 802 (1984)).

11991–1991
Harford Sands, Inc. v. Groft green
md · 1990
2 sentences

1991It is well established in Maryland that in determining whether jury contact is prejudicial, a trial court must balance the “probability of prejudice from the face of the extraneous matter in relation to the circumstances of the particular case.” Harford Sands, Inc. v. Groft, 320 Md. 136, 138-39 , 577 A.2d 7 (1990) (quoting Wernsing v. General Motors Corp., 298 Md. 406, 411 , 470 A.2d 802 (1984)).

1991It is well established in Maryland that in determining whether jury contact is prejudicial, a trial court must balance the “probability of prejudice from the face of the extraneous matter in relation to the circumstances of the particular case.” Harford Sands, Inc. v. Groft, 320 Md. 136, 138-39 , 577 A.2d 7 (1990) (quoting Wernsing v. General Motors Corp., 298 Md. 406, 411 , 470 A.2d 802 (1984)).

11991–1991

Where else courts name it

CA 558 (1947–2026) OH 495 (1990–2026) WA 433 (1968–2026) IL 374 (1992–2026) TX 340 (1908–2026) IN 196 (1917–2026) ID 174 (1989–2026) NJ 158 (1974–2026) CO 155 (1984–2026) UT 142 (1991–2026) AL 121 (1958–2026) KS 117 (1961–2026) NC 89 (1947–2026) FL 83 (1968–2026) OR 69 (1932–2026) AZ 66 (1966–2026) KY 46 (1937–2026) AR 44 (1927–2026) WY 40 (1977–2026) VA 33 (1923–2025) MO 33 (1965–2025) MI 30 (1978–2026) MN 27 (1997–2026) WV 23 (1979–2024) CT 20 (2007–2025) NM 20 (2013–2026) DC 19 (2007–2026) ND 18 (1992–2025) VT 17 (1999–2025) NV 15 (1975–2024) MS 14 (1986–2025) MD 8 (1991–2023) VI 8 (2012–2025) WI 7 (1995–2026) SD 7 (1985–2023) AK 6 (1989–2025) OK 5 (1963–1997) NE 5 (1924–2025) HI 4 (1962–2018) NH 4 (2010–2022) IA 3 (2014–2024) MT 3 (1969–2015) GA 3 (1984–2015) GU 3 (2022–2024) DE 2 (1991–1996) MP 2 (1993–1995) MA 2 (2012–2017) TN 2 (1960–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check