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.
60 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co.green2 sentences2003General Statutes § 52-216c abolished the so-called Secondino rule; see Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672 , 165 A.2d 598 (1960); which had permitted an adverse inference to be drawn from a party’s failure to call a witness under certain specific circumstances. 2003General Statutes § 52-216c abolished the so-called Secondino rule; see Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672 , 165 A.2d 598 (1960); which had permitted an adverse inference to be drawn from a party’s failure to call a witness under certain specific circumstances. | 3 | 19 |
State v. Danielsgreen2 sentences2001This principle, previously articulated by this court in Ezzo v. Geremiah, 107 Conn. 670, 677 , 142 A. 461 (1928), and subsequently approved for use in criminal cases; see State v. Daniels, 180 Conn. 101, 109 , 429 A.2d 813 (1980); State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 536-39 , 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); commonly is referred to as the Secondino rule or the missing witness rule. 2001This principle, previously articulated by this court in Ezzo v. Geremiah, 107 Conn. 670, 677 , 142 A. 461 (1928), and subsequently approved for use in criminal cases; see State v. Daniels, 180 Conn. 101, 109 , 429 A.2d 813 (1980); State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 536-39 , 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); commonly is referred to as the Secondino rule or the missing witness rule. | 3 | 4 |
| Shelnitz v. Greenberggreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Malavegreen2 sentences2019Although the Supreme Court subsequently stated, in dictum, that "as long as the Secondino adverse inference instruction remains viable in Connecticut ... the mere fact that a witness is equally available to both parties does not preclude a trial court from delivering a Secondino charge"; (citations omitted) Hines v. Saint Vincent's Medical Center , 232 Conn. 632 , 637 n.8, 657 A.2d 578 (1995) ; this dictum is no longer persuasive in light of the court's subsequent abandonment of the Secondino rule in State v. Malave , supra, 250 Conn. at 728 , 737 A.2d 442 . 2019Although the Supreme Court subsequently stated, in dictum, that "as long as the Secondino adverse inference instruction remains viable in Connecticut ... the mere fact that a witness is equally available to both parties does not preclude a trial court from delivering a Secondino charge"; (citations omitted) Hines v. Saint Vincent's Medical Center , 232 Conn. 632 , 637 n.8, 657 A.2d 578 (1995) ; this dictum is no longer persuasive in light of the court's subsequent abandonment of the Secondino rule in State v. Malave , supra, 250 Conn. at 728 , 737 A.2d 442 . | 1 | 11 |
Malave v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences2000After the defendant filed his brief in this appeal, our Supreme Court abandoned the Secondino rule in criminal cases in State v. Malave, 250 Conn. 722, 739 , 737 A.2d 442 (1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1170 , 120 S. Ct. 1195 , 145 L. 2000After the defendant filed his brief in this appeal, our Supreme Court abandoned the Secondino rule in criminal cases in State v. Malave, 250 Conn. 722, 739 , 737 A.2d 442 (1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1170 , 120 S. Ct. 1195 , 145 L. | 1 | 5 |
Mitchell v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2000After the defendant filed his brief in this appeal, our Supreme Court abandoned the Secondino rule in criminal cases in State v. Malave, 250 Conn. 722, 739 , 737 A.2d 442 (1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1170 , 120 S. Ct. 1195 , 145 L. 2000After the defendant filed his brief in this appeal, our Supreme Court abandoned the Secondino rule in criminal cases in State v. Malave, 250 Conn. 722, 739 , 737 A.2d 442 (1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1170 , 120 S. Ct. 1195 , 145 L. | 1 | 5 |
Smart-Davis v. Johns Hopkins Universitygreen2 sentences2000After the defendant filed his brief in this appeal, our Supreme Court abandoned the Secondino rule in criminal cases in State v. Malave, 250 Conn. 722, 739 , 737 A.2d 442 (1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1170 , 120 S. Ct. 1195 , 145 L. 2000After the defendant filed his brief in this appeal, our Supreme Court abandoned the Secondino rule in criminal cases in State v. Malave, 250 Conn. 722, 739 , 737 A.2d 442 (1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1170 , 120 S. Ct. 1195 , 145 L. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Annunziatogreen2 sentences2001This principle, previously articulated by this court in Ezzo v. Geremiah, 107 Conn. 670, 677 , 142 A. 461 (1928), and subsequently approved for use in criminal cases; see State v. Daniels, 180 Conn. 101, 109 , 429 A.2d 813 (1980); State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 536-39 , 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); commonly is referred to as the Secondino rule or the missing witness rule. 2001This principle, previously articulated by this court in Ezzo v. Geremiah, 107 Conn. 670, 677 , 142 A. 461 (1928), and subsequently approved for use in criminal cases; see State v. Daniels, 180 Conn. 101, 109 , 429 A.2d 813 (1980); State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 536-39 , 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); commonly is referred to as the Secondino rule or the missing witness rule. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Shashatygreen2 sentences1988Two conditions must be met to trigger the negative inference under the Secondino rule. “ ‘The witness must be available, and he must be a witness whom the party would naturally produce.’ ” State v. Shashaty, 205 Conn. 39, 43 , 529 A.2d 1308 (1987); Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., supra. “A witness who would naturally be produced by a party is one who is known to that party and who, by reason of his relationship to that party or to the issues, or both, could reasonably be expected to have peculiar or superior information material to the case which, if favorable, the party would produce.” Second 1988Two conditions must be met to trigger the negative inference under the Secondino rule. “ ‘The witness must be available, and he must be a witness whom the party would naturally produce.’ ” State v. Shashaty, 205 Conn. 39, 43 , 529 A.2d 1308 (1987); Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., supra. “A witness who would naturally be produced by a party is one who is known to that party and who, by reason of his relationship to that party or to the issues, or both, could reasonably be expected to have peculiar or superior information material to the case which, if favorable, the party would produce.” Second | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hudsongreen2 sentences1998Our review of the transcript shows that Maria Castro testified that she and Cindy Castro were roommates in New Haven and that she answered affirmatively to the question: “And you still see [Cindy Castro]?” In State v. Hudson, 14 Conn. App. 463, 469 , 541 A.2d 534 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 803 , 548 A.2d 439 (1988), we found that evidence that a “missing” witness lived in New Haven at the time of trial and had been seen three weeks before trial was sufficient for the jury to find availability. 1998Our review of the transcript shows that Maria Castro testified that she and Cindy Castro were roommates in New Haven and that she answered affirmatively to the question: “And you still see [Cindy Castro]?” In State v. Hudson, 14 Conn. App. 463, 469 , 541 A.2d 534 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 803 , 548 A.2d 439 (1988), we found that evidence that a “missing” witness lived in New Haven at the time of trial and had been seen three weeks before trial was sufficient for the jury to find availability. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1999In 1998, however, the legislature prohibited the use of the missing witness instruction in civil cases; Public Acts 1998, No. 98-50; 7 and this court, acknowledging that the vitality of the Secondino rule has been questioned; see State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481 , 493 n.9, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L. 1999In 1998, however, the legislature prohibited the use of the missing witness instruction in civil cases; Public Acts 1998, No. 98-50; 7 and this court, acknowledging that the vitality of the Secondino rule has been questioned; see State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481 , 493 n.9, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L. | 1 | 2 |
Newman v. Worcester County Department of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences1999In 1998, however, the legislature prohibited the use of the missing witness instruction in civil cases; Public Acts 1998, No. 98-50; 7 and this court, acknowledging that the vitality of the Secondino rule has been questioned; see State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481 , 493 n.9, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L. 1999I am pleased that my colleagues in the majority have finally decided to join my long-standing opposition to the Secondino rule, pursuant to which the jury in a criminal trial is authorized to infer that the testimony of an absent witness would have been unfavorable to the accused. 1 See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 507 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L. | 1 | 2 |
McMillian v. Tategreen2 sentences1999In 1998, however, the legislature prohibited the use of the missing witness instruction in civil cases; Public Acts 1998, No. 98-50; 7 and this court, acknowledging that the vitality of the Secondino rule has been questioned; see State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481 , 493 n.9, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L. 1999I am pleased that my colleagues in the majority have finally decided to join my long-standing opposition to the Secondino rule, pursuant to which the jury in a criminal trial is authorized to infer that the testimony of an absent witness would have been unfavorable to the accused. 1 See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 507 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L. | 1 | 2 |
Rush v. Texasgreen2 sentences1999In 1998, however, the legislature prohibited the use of the missing witness instruction in civil cases; Public Acts 1998, No. 98-50; 7 and this court, acknowledging that the vitality of the Secondino rule has been questioned; see State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481 , 493 n.9, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L. 1999I am pleased that my colleagues in the majority have finally decided to join my long-standing opposition to the Secondino rule, pursuant to which the jury in a criminal trial is authorized to infer that the testimony of an absent witness would have been unfavorable to the accused. 1 See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 507 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L. | 1 | 2 |
Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.green2 sentences1999Ed. 2d 1017 (1997) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (“the time has come for this court to discard . . . the Secondino rule”); Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 231 Conn. 690 , 706 n.1, 651 A.2d 1286 (1995) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (critical of Secondino); State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 329 , 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165 , 115 S. Ct. 1133 , 130 L. 1999Ed. 2d 1017 (1997) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (“the time has come for this court to discard . . . the Secondino rule”); Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 231 Conn. 690 , 706 n.1, 651 A.2d 1286 (1995) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (critical of Secondino); State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 329 , 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165 , 115 S. Ct. 1133 , 130 L. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hudsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| D'Amico v. Mansongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Woodsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blake v. Blakegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marone v. City of Waterburygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Graves v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Olivergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Foster v. Peddicordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| TVL Corp. v. Spanish International Communications Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| North v. Walshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. American Thread Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Amarillogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pearygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Illinois Office of Education v. Jenningsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ezzo v. Geremiah
green
2 sentences2001This principle, previously articulated by this court in Ezzo v. Geremiah, 107 Conn. 670, 677 , 142 A. 461 (1928), and subsequently approved for use in criminal cases; see State v. Daniels, 180 Conn. 101, 109 , 429 A.2d 813 (1980); State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 536-39 , 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); commonly is referred to as the Secondino rule or the missing witness rule. 2001This principle, previously articulated by this court in Ezzo v. Geremiah, 107 Conn. 670, 677 , 142 A. 461 (1928), and subsequently approved for use in criminal cases; see State v. Daniels, 180 Conn. 101, 109 , 429 A.2d 813 (1980); State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 536-39 , 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); commonly is referred to as the Secondino rule or the missing witness rule. | 6 | 1986–2001 |
State v. Wood
green
2 sentences1998An inquiry into the appropriateness of a Secondino instruction is, accordingly, two-pronged: whether the witness is available and whether, under the facts of this case, the witness is one whom the state would naturally be expected to produce.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125, 140 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. 1998An inquiry into the appropriateness of a Secondino instruction is, accordingly, two-pronged: whether the witness is available and whether, under the facts of this case, the witness is one whom the state would naturally be expected to produce.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125, 140 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. | 5 | 1988–1998 |
Ferenc v. Internal Revenue Service
green
2 sentences1998An inquiry into the appropriateness of a Secondino instruction is, accordingly, two-pronged: whether the witness is available and whether, under the facts of this case, the witness is one whom the state would naturally be expected to produce.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125, 140 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. 1998An inquiry into the appropriateness of a Secondino instruction is, accordingly, two-pronged: whether the witness is available and whether, under the facts of this case, the witness is one whom the state would naturally be expected to produce.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125, 140 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. | 4 | 1996–1998 |
Kitchen v. Indiana
green
2 sentences1998An inquiry into the appropriateness of a Secondino instruction is, accordingly, two-pronged: whether the witness is available and whether, under the facts of this case, the witness is one whom the state would naturally be expected to produce.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125, 140 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. 1997An inquiry into the appropriateness of a Secondino instruction is, accordingly, two-pronged: whether the witness is available and whether, under the facts of this case, the witness is one whom the state would naturally be expected to produce.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125, 140 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. | 4 | 1996–1998 |
Raia v. Topehius
green
2 sentences1988Bell v. Bihary, 168 Conn. 269, 271 , 362 A.2d 963 [1975]; Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 237 , 332 A.2d 93 [1973]; Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., [supra, 675]. 1988Bell v. Bihary, 168 Conn. 269, 271 , 362 A.2d 963 [1975]; Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 237 , 332 A.2d 93 [1973]; Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., [supra, 675]. | 4 | 1976–1988 |
Bell v. Bihary
green
2 sentences1988Bell v. Bihary, 168 Conn. 269, 271 , 362 A.2d 963 [1975]; Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 237 , 332 A.2d 93 [1973]; Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., [supra, 675]. 1988Bell v. Bihary, 168 Conn. 269, 271 , 362 A.2d 963 [1975]; Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 237 , 332 A.2d 93 [1973]; Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., [supra, 675]. | 4 | 1976–1988 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2013“Whether a party has established the requirements for a Secondino instruction is a factual determination that is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. 2000Whether a party has established the requirements for a Secondino instruction is a factual determination that is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 245 Conn. 779, 813-14 , 717 A.2d 1140 (1998). | 3 | 2000–2013 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences1999I For decades, this court, along with a majority of other state and federal courts, has sanctioned a jury instruction that “ [t]he failure of a party to produce as a witness one who [1] is available and [2] . . . naturally would be produced permits the inference that such witness, if called, would have exposed facts unfavorable to the party’s cause.” State v. Brown, 169 Conn. 692, 704 , 364 A.2d 186 (1975); see also Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 , 14 S. Ct. 40 , 37 L. 1999I For decades, this court, along with a majority of other state and federal courts, has sanctioned a jury instruction that “ [t]he failure of a party to produce as a witness one who [1] is available and [2] . . . naturally would be produced permits the inference that such witness, if called, would have exposed facts unfavorable to the party’s cause.” State v. Brown, 169 Conn. 692, 704 , 364 A.2d 186 (1975); see also Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 , 14 S. Ct. 40 , 37 L. | 3 | 1982–1999 |
State v. Carrione
green
2 sentences1998State v. Carrione, 188 Conn. 681, 688 , 453 A.2d 1137 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 , 103 S. Ct. 1775 , 76 L. 1998State v. Carrione, 188 Conn. 681, 688 , 453 A.2d 1137 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 , 103 S. Ct. 1775 , 76 L. | 3 | 1988–1998 |
Freeman v. United States
green
2 sentences1998State v. Carrione, 188 Conn. 681, 688 , 453 A.2d 1137 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 , 103 S. Ct. 1775 , 76 L. 1998State v. Carrione, 188 Conn. 681, 688 , 453 A.2d 1137 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 , 103 S. Ct. 1775 , 76 L. | 3 | 1988–1998 |
Lanigan v. United States
green
2 sentences1998State v. Carrione, 188 Conn. 681, 688 , 453 A.2d 1137 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 , 103 S. Ct. 1775 , 76 L. 1998State v. Carrione, 188 Conn. 681, 688 , 453 A.2d 1137 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 , 103 S. Ct. 1775 , 76 L. | 3 | 1988–1998 |
M/V Pollux v. Goodpasture, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998State v. Carrione, 188 Conn. 681, 688 , 453 A.2d 1137 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 , 103 S. Ct. 1775 , 76 L. 1998State v. Carrione, 188 Conn. 681, 688 , 453 A.2d 1137 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 , 103 S. Ct. 1775 , 76 L. | 3 | 1988–1998 |
State v. Watley
green
2 sentences1996State v. Grant, supra, 105 ; State v. Watley, 195 Conn. 485, 488 , 488 A.2d 1245 (1985). 1996State v. Grant, supra, 105 ; State v. Watley, 195 Conn. 485, 488 , 488 A.2d 1245 (1985). | 3 | 1992–1996 |
State v. Bailey
green
2 sentences2002The jury charge explaining the rule is known as the Secondino instruction or missing witness instruction.” State v. Bailey, 56 Conn. App. 760 , 761 n.1, 746 A.2d 194 (2000). 2002The jury charge explaining the rule is known as the Secondino instruction or missing witness instruction.” State v. Bailey, 56 Conn. App. 760 , 761 n.1, 746 A.2d 194 (2000). | 2 | 2000–2002 |
State v. Quinones
green
2 sentences2000State v. Quinones, 56 Conn. App. 529, 533 , 745 A.2d 191 (2000). 2000State v. Quinones, 56 Conn. App. 529, 533 , 745 A.2d 191 (2000). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Ross
green
2 sentences1999Ed. 2d 1017 (1997) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (“the time has come for this court to discard . . . the Secondino rule”); Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 231 Conn. 690 , 706 n.1, 651 A.2d 1286 (1995) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (critical of Secondino); State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 329 , 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165 , 115 S. Ct. 1133 , 130 L. 1999Ed. 2d 1017 (1997) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (“the time has come for this court to discard . . . the Secondino rule”); Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 231 Conn. 690 , 706 n.1, 651 A.2d 1286 (1995) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (critical of Secondino); State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 329 , 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165 , 115 S. Ct. 1133 , 130 L. | 2 | 1995–1999 |
| State v. Golding green | 2 | 1996–1996 |
| Valley Surgical Group, P.C. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act green | 2 | 1989–1990 |
| Canton Motorcar Works, Inc. v. DiMartino green | 2 | 1989–1990 |
| Canton Motorcar Works, Inc. v. DiMartino green | 2 | 1989–1990 |
| State v. Hart green | 2 | 1986–1987 |
| Hines v. Saint Vincent's Medical Center green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Woods green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Young green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Barrows v. J.C. Penney Co. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Thompson v. Orcutt green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Neyland v. Board of Education green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| George v. Ericson green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Gonzalez-Rivera green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Heywood Heights Condominium Ass'n v. City of Stamford green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Ross green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Clark green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Harris v. Schaefer green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Njoku v. Schmidt green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Greene green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Corbeil green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Oliver green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Romero green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Panella green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Oliver green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.