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 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1855–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shearl v. Town of Highlandsgreen2 sentences2022Since Petitioner obtained the Property on 29 June 2016, during the ineffective period of the Town’s attempts to regulate short-term rentals, it follows that Petitioner’s use first acquired a nonconforming character on the effective date of the 2019 Amendment. (4) The BOA Erred and Exceeded its Authority by Failing to Conclude Petitioner Established a Prima Facie Case of Nonconforming Use and Denying His Claim ¶ 28 “[T]he burden of proving the existence of an operation in violation of the local zoning ordinance is on [the Town].” Shearl v. Town of Highlands, 236 N.C. App. 113 , 116-17, 762 S.E. 2022Since Petitioner obtained the Property on 29 June 2016, during the ineffective period of the Town’s attempts to regulate short-term rentals, it follows that Petitioner’s use first acquired a nonconforming character on the effective date of the 2019 Amendment. (4) The BOA Erred and Exceeded its Authority by Failing to Conclude Petitioner Established a Prima Facie Case of Nonconforming Use and Denying His Claim ¶ 28 “[T]he burden of proving the existence of an operation in violation of the local zoning ordinance is on [the Town].” Shearl v. Town of Highlands, 236 N.C. App. 113 , 116-17, 762 S.E. | 5 | 5 |
City of Winston-Salem v. Hoots Concrete Co.green2 sentences2022Since Petitioner obtained the Property on 29 June 2016, during the ineffective period of the Town’s attempts to regulate short-term rentals, it follows that Petitioner’s use first acquired a nonconforming character on the effective date of the 2019 Amendment. (4) The BOA Erred and Exceeded its Authority by Failing to Conclude Petitioner Established a Prima Facie Case of Nonconforming Use and Denying His Claim ¶ 28 “[T]he burden of proving the existence of an operation in violation of the local zoning ordinance is on [the Town].” Shearl v. Town of Highlands, 236 N.C. App. 113 , 116-17, 762 S.E. 2022Since Petitioner obtained the Property on 29 June 2016, during the ineffective period of the Town’s attempts to regulate short-term rentals, it follows that Petitioner’s use first acquired a nonconforming character on the effective date of the 2019 Amendment. (4) The BOA Erred and Exceeded its Authority by Failing to Conclude Petitioner Established a Prima Facie Case of Nonconforming Use and Denying His Claim ¶ 28 “[T]he burden of proving the existence of an operation in violation of the local zoning ordinance is on [the Town].” Shearl v. Town of Highlands, 236 N.C. App. 113 , 116-17, 762 S.E. | 4 | 6 |
State v. Braswellgreen2 sentences1999We reviewed the operation of this test in the recent case of State v. Lee: [Defendant must first show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as defined by professional norms. [State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 561-62 , 324 S.E.2d 241, 248 (1985).] . . . 1999We reviewed the operation of this test in the recent case of State v. Lee: [Defendant must first show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as defined by professional norms. [State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 561-62 , 324 S.E.2d 241, 248 (1985).] . . . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences1984“An assertion ... by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” State v. Mitchell, 276 N.C. 404, 410 , 172 S.E. 2d 527, 530 (1970). 1984“An assertion ... by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” State v. Mitchell, 276 N.C. 404, 410 , 172 S.E. 2d 527, 530 (1970). | 2 | 2 |
Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Batchers' Union Slaughter-House Co.green2 sentences1935See a learned discussion of this subject in Orescent City Livestock v. Butchers’ Union, 120 U. S., 141 -149, et seq.; 18 R. 1921See a learned discussion of this subject in Crescent City Livestock v. Butcher’s Union, 120 U. S., 141 -149 et seq.; 18 R. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Foddrellgreen2 sentences1989“An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this state, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” State v. Foddrell, 291 N.C. 546, 557 , 231 S.E. 2d 618, 626 (1977). 1989“An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this state, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” State v. Foddrell, 291 N.C. 546, 557 , 231 S.E. 2d 618, 626 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
Hawkins v. M & J FINANCE CORP.green2 sentences1962The general principles governing the operation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel are stated by Johnson, J., in Hawkins v. Finance Corp., 238 N.C. 174 , 77 S.E. 2d 669 . 1962The general principles governing the operation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel are stated by Johnson, J., in Hawkins v. Finance Corp., 238 N.C. 174 , 77 S.E. 2d 669 . | 1 | 2 |
Headen v. . Womackgreen2 sentences1915See Headen v. Womack, supra. Plaintiffs contended that defendants could not recover on their counterclaim, because they had not alleged or proved that the clause of de-feasance, or the terms creating a trust, had been omitted from the absolute deed by ignorance, mistake, undue influence, or fraud, which they insist is essential, and they relied on Sprague v. Bond, 115 N. C., 530 ; but a decision of this point is not necessary, as we base our conclusion on another and sufficient ground. 1913Undoubtedly this is true as to this jurisdiction (Worth v. Wrenn,, 144 N. C., pp. 656-660; Cox v. Brower, 114 N. C., 422 ; Headen v. Womack, 88 N. C., 468 ), though a shorter time has been allowed to prevail here, as in Hamlin v. Mebane, 54 N. C., 18 , where the principle does apply. | 1 | 2 |
Jacobson v. Massachusettsgreen2 sentences2025See Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 26 , 25 S. Ct. at 361 (“Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, . . . regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”); Hay, 126 N.C. at 1000 , 35 S.E. at 460 (“All government is a necessary evil. 2025See Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 26 , 25 S. Ct. at 361 (“Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, . . . regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”); Hay, 126 N.C. at 1000 , 35 S.E. at 460 (“All government is a necessary evil. | 1 | 1 |
Hutchins v. Durham.green2 sentences2025It is, however, a much lesser evil than the intolerable state of things which would exist if there were no government to bridle the absolute right of every man to do that which seems right in his own eyes . . . .”); Hutchins, 137 N.C. at 71-72, 49 S.E. at 47 (“That [the plaintiff’s daughter] cannot safely be vaccinated may make it preferable that she herself should run the risk of taking the smallpox, but is no reason that the children of the public school should be exposed to like risk . . . .”). 2025It is, however, a much lesser evil than the intolerable state of things which would exist if there were no government to bridle the absolute right of every man to do that which seems right in his own eyes . . . .”); Hutchins, 137 N.C. at 71-72, 49 S.E. at 47 (“That [the plaintiff’s daughter] cannot safely be vaccinated may make it preferable that she herself should run the risk of taking the smallpox, but is no reason that the children of the public school should be exposed to like risk . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. . Haygreen2 sentences2025See Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 26 , 25 S. Ct. at 361 (“Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, . . . regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”); Hay, 126 N.C. at 1000 , 35 S.E. at 460 (“All government is a necessary evil. 2025See Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 26 , 25 S. Ct. at 361 (“Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, . . . regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”); Hay, 126 N.C. at 1000 , 35 S.E. at 460 (“All government is a necessary evil. | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. . Basnightgreen2 sentences2010Notably, the policy specifically exempted coverage resulting from loss or damage due to the “Lis Pendens against Francesca Agnoli by Thomas Michael Kelley, in the amount (not given), filed 11/28/2007 in, ID number D7M142 in Davie County Records.” “[W]here one buys from a litigant with full notice or knowledge of the suit and of its nature and purpose and the specific property to be affected, he is concluded or his purchase will be held ineffective and fraudulent as to decree rendered in the cause and the rights thereby established.” Morris v. Basnight, 179 N.C. 298, 303 , 102 S.E. 389, 392 (19 2010Notably, the policy specifically exempted coverage resulting from loss or damage due to the “Lis Pendens against Francesca Agnoli by Thomas Michael Kelley, in the amount (not given), filed 11/28/2007 in, ID number D7M142 in Davie County Records.” “[W]here one buys from a litigant with full notice or knowledge of the suit and of its nature and purpose and the specific property to be affected, he is concluded or his purchase will be held ineffective and fraudulent as to decree rendered in the cause and the rights thereby established.” Morris v. Basnight, 179 N.C. 298, 303 , 102 S.E. 389, 392 (19 | 1 | 1 |
Edelman v. Californiagreen2 sentences1983See Edelman v. California, 344 U.S. 357 , 73 S.Ct. 293 , 97 L.Ed. 387 (1953); State v. Parks, 290 N.C. 748 , 228 S.E.2d 248 (1976). 1983See Edelman v. California, 344 U.S. 357 , 73 S.Ct. 293 , 97 L.Ed. 387 (1953); State v. Parks, 290 N.C. 748 , 228 S.E.2d 248 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Shoe v. Hoodgreen2 sentences1980Tew v. Runnels, supra. To avoid the operation of the doctrine, the owner of the vehicle must prove that he relinquished, “for the time being, the incidents of ownership and the right to control the manner and methods of its use.” Shoe v. Hood, 251 N.C. 719, 724 , 112 S.E. 2d 543, 548 (1960). 1980Tew v. Runnels, supra. To avoid the operation of the doctrine, the owner of the vehicle must prove that he relinquished, “for the time being, the incidents of ownership and the right to control the manner and methods of its use.” Shoe v. Hood, 251 N.C. 719, 724 , 112 S.E. 2d 543, 548 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
| Mann v. . Manngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sprague v. . Bondgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lowery
green
2 sentences1987An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975); State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541 , 196 S.E. 2d 725 (1973); 4 Strong’s North Carolina Index 3d Criminal Law § 162 (1976). 1987An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975); State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541 , 196 S.E. 2d 725 (1973); 4 Strong’s North Carolina Index 3d Criminal Law § 162 (1976). | 4 | 1977–1987 |
Puckett v. . Morgan
green
2 sentences1954In Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N.C. 344 , 74 S.E. 15 , the devise was: “I leave Martha Morgan . . . the Rachel tract . . . during her life, then to her bodily heirs, if any; but if she have none, back to her brothers and sisters.” The Court construed “bodily heirs” to mean children or issue living at her death, the devise therefore being outside the operation of the rule in Shelley’s case. 1954In Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N.C. 344 , 74 S.E. 15 , the devise was: “I leave Martha Morgan . . . the Rachel tract . . . during her life, then to her bodily heirs, if any; but if she have none, back to her brothers and sisters.” The Court construed “bodily heirs” to mean children or issue living at her death, the devise therefore being outside the operation of the rule in Shelley’s case. | 4 | 1922–1954 |
State v. Gurley
green
2 sentences1987An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975); State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541 , 196 S.E. 2d 725 (1973); 4 Strong’s North Carolina Index 3d Criminal Law § 162 (1976). 1987An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975); State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541 , 196 S.E. 2d 725 (1973); 4 Strong’s North Carolina Index 3d Criminal Law § 162 (1976). | 3 | 1977–1987 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1999Second, once defendant satisfies the first prong, he must show that the error committed was so serious that a reasonable probability exists that the trial result would have been different absent the error. [Strickland, 466 U.S.] at 695, 80 L. 1999Second, once defendant satisfies the first prong, he must show that the error committed was so serious that a reasonable probability exists that the trial result would have been different absent the error. [Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698 , 80 L. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1978An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See also State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975), modified on other grounds, 428 U.S. 902 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 1206 , 96 S.Ct. 3203 (1976); State v. Jones, 280 N.C. 322 , 185 S.E. 2d 858 (1972). 1978An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See also State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975), modified on other grounds, 428 U.S. 902 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 1206 , 96 S.Ct. 3203 (1976); State v. Jones, 280 N.C. 322 , 185 S.E. 2d 858 (1972). | 2 | 1978–1981 |
Elledge v. Welch
green
2 sentences1968“And the fact that deeds exchanged between tenants in common in effecting partition may be regular form deeds of bargain and sale, with the usual covenants of title, seizen [sic], and warranty, ordinarily does not affect the operation of the rule that a partition deed creates no new, different, or additional title.” Elledge v. Welch, 238 N.C. 61, 67 , 76 S.E. 2d 340, 344 , and cases cited. 1968“And the fact that deeds exchanged between tenants in common in effecting partition may be regular form deeds of bargain and sale, with the usual covenants of title, seizen [sic], and warranty, ordinarily does not affect the operation of the rule that a partition deed creates no new, different, or additional title.” Elledge v. Welch, 238 N.C. 61, 67 , 76 S.E. 2d 340, 344 , and cases cited. | 2 | 1968–1968 |
Doggett v. . Vaughan
neutral
2 sentences1939Hence, according to a number of decisions this would seem to take the case out of the operation of the rule in Shelley’s case, and assign it to that class of cases of which the following may be said to be fairly illustrative: Rollins v. Keel, 115 N. C., 68 , 20 S. E., 209 ; Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N. C., 344 , 74 S. E., 15 ; Jones v. Whichard, 163 N. C., 241 , 79 S. E., 503 ; Pugh v. Allen, 179 N. C., 307 , 102 S. E., 394 ; Blackledge v. Simmons, 180 N. C., 535 , 105 S. E., 202 ; Wallace v. Wallace, 181 N. C., 158 , 106 S. E., 501 ; Reid v. Neal, 182 N. C., 192 , 108 S. E., 769 ; Hampton v. Gri 1939Hence, according to a number of decisions this would seem to take the case out of the operation of the rule in Shelley’s case, and assign it to that class of cases of which the following may be said to be fairly illustrative: Rollins v. Keel, 115 N. C., 68 , 20 S. E., 209 ; Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N. C., 344 , 74 S. E., 15 ; Jones v. Whichard, 163 N. C., 241 , 79 S. E., 503 ; Pugh v. Allen, 179 N. C., 307 , 102 S. E., 394 ; Blackledge v. Simmons, 180 N. C., 535 , 105 S. E., 202 ; Wallace v. Wallace, 181 N. C., 158 , 106 S. E., 501 ; Reid v. Neal, 182 N. C., 192 , 108 S. E., 769 ; Hampton v. Gri | 2 | 1937–1939 |
John L. Roper Lumber Co. v. Richmond Cedar Works
neutral
2 sentences1919It would seem that all this record is fully sufficient to bring this case within the operation of the principle settled in Roper Lumber Co. v. Richmond Cedar Works , 165 N.C. 83 , where we held that a purchaser at a judicial sale of land which was held in common, made for partition or otherwise, and a deed to the purchaser by the commissioner under the decree of the court were sufficient to constitute color of title, and that seven years adverse possession thereunder would vest the title in the purchaser as against the former tenants so holding the land. 1919It would seem that all this record is fully sufficient to bring this case-within the operation of the principle settled in Roper Lumber Co. v. Richmond Cedar Works, 165 N. C., 83 , where we held that a purchaser at a judicial sale of land which was held in common, made for partition or otherwise, and a deed to the purchaser by the commissioner under the decree of the court were sufficient to constitute color of title, and that seven years adverse possession thereunder would vest the title in the purchaser as against the former tenants so holding the land. | 2 | 1919–1919 |
Carver v. . Brady
neutral
2 sentences1916Carver v. Brady , 104 N.C. 219 ; Cushman v. Sutphen , 42 Ill. 255 . 1916Carver v. Brady, 104 N. C., 219 ; Cushman v. Sutphen, 42 Ill., 255 . ' In reaching our conclusion we have followed the unbroken line of precedents in this Court for half a century, as well as the overwhelming weight of authority in this country as well as in England. | 2 | 1916–1916 |
United States v. Miami University Ohio State University, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Intervening
green
1 sentence2020While conflict preemption exists where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, conflict preemption does not exist in the present case because compliance with both the Public Records Act and FERPA is possible, and the Public Records Act does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress regarding the governance of education under Title 20 of the Unites States Code. -24- Lastly, defendants | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Davis v. Siloo Inc.
green
2 sentences2017App. 405 , 414, 267 S.E.2d 569 , 575, disc. review denied , 301 N.C. 234 , 283 S.E.2d 131 (1980). 2017App. 405 , 414, 267 S.E.2d 569 , 575, disc. review denied , 301 N.C. 234 , 283 S.E.2d 131 (1980). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson
red
2 sentences1991Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106-107 , 92 S.Ct. at 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d at 306 . 1991Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106-107 , 92 S.Ct. at 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d at 306 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Hammond
green
2 sentences1987The present appeal is on all fours with State v. Hammond, 307 N.C. 662 , 300 S.E. 2d 361 (1983) (holding that failure to renew objection to in-court identification testimony waived appellate review). 1987The present appeal is on all fours with State v. Hammond, 307 N.C. 662 , 300 S.E. 2d 361 (1983) (holding that failure to renew objection to in-court identification testimony waived appellate review). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Carolina v. Parks
green
2 sentences1983See Edelman v. California, 344 U.S. 357 , 73 S.Ct. 293 , 97 L.Ed. 387 (1953); State v. Parks, 290 N.C. 748 , 228 S.E.2d 248 (1976). 1983See Edelman v. California, 344 U.S. 357 , 73 S.Ct. 293 , 97 L.Ed. 387 (1953); State v. Parks, 290 N.C. 748 , 228 S.E.2d 248 (1976). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Monk
green
2 sentences1982(Citation omitted.) Id. at 53 , 229 S.E. 2d at 173-74 . 1982(Citation omitted.) Id. at 53 , 229 S.E. 2d at 173-74 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Lowery v. North Carolina
neutral
2 sentences1978An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See also State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975), modified on other grounds, 428 U.S. 902 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 1206 , 96 S.Ct. 3203 (1976); State v. Jones, 280 N.C. 322 , 185 S.E. 2d 858 (1972). 1978An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See also State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975), modified on other grounds, 428 U.S. 902 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 1206 , 96 S.Ct. 3203 (1976); State v. Jones, 280 N.C. 322 , 185 S.E. 2d 858 (1972). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Wright v. Vaden green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| In Re the Will of Covington green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Wilson v. Commercial Finance Co. green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Steele v. . Beaty green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Tynch v. Briggs neutral | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Duckett v. . Lyda green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Harrison v. . Ray green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Paine v. Drew neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Ruggles v. Keeler green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Blackledge v. . Simmons neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Wallace v. . Wallace neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Jones v. . Whichard green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Gurganus v. . Bullock neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Pugh v. . Allen green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Welch v. . Gibson neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Rollins v. . Keel neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Reid v. . Neal green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Morehead v. . Montague neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Nobles v. . Nobles neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Whitehurst v. . Bowers neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Parrish v. . Hodge neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Martin v. . Knowles green | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Merchants National Bank v. Dortch neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Thompson v. Crump. neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.