Newton brief in Alabama

7 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Smith v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2000 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010 2 sentences 2009Newton’s eighth argument is that “[t]he trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that it did not have to be unanimous as to mitigating circumstances violated [his] rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” (Newton’s brief at p. 36.) We addressed a similar argument in Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 835-36 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), as follows: “Smith also argues that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that its finding as to mitigating circumstances did not have to be unanimous, implied that the mitigating circumstances had to be unanimous. 2009Newton's eighth argument is that "[t]he trial court's failure to instruct the jury that it did not have to be unanimous as to mitigating circumstances violated [his] rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." (Newton's brief at p. 36.) We addressed a similar argument in Smith v. State , 795 So. 2d 788 , 835-36 (Ala. Crim.	2	3
Sockwell v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Newton’s sixth argument is that “[t]he death qualification of the jury in this case violated [his] rights to an impartial jury and to due process of law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” (Newton’s brief at p. 34.) We addressed and rejected a similar contention in Sockwell v. State, 675 So.2d 4, 17-18 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 675 So.2d 38 (Ala.1995), as follows: “The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to quash the jury venire because, he argues, the prosecutor acknowledged that she had challenged by peremptory strikes tho 2009Newton's sixth argument is that "[t]he death qualification of the jury in this case violated [his] rights to an impartial jury and to due process of law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." *Page 24 (Newton's brief at p. 34.) We addressed and rejected a similar contention in Sockwell v. State , 675 So. 2d 4 , 17-18 (Ala. Crim.	1	2
Blackmon v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2006 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009VIL Citing Ring, supra, Newton’s seventh argument is that “[t]he trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that it had to be unanimous as to aggravating circumstances violated [his] rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” (Newton’s brief at p. 36.) We addressed and rejected a similar argument in Blackmon v. State, 7 So.3d 397, 432-33 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), as follows: “Blackmon also argues that her death sentence violates Ring because the jury was not instructed that it had to unanimously determine the existence of the aggravating circumstance and t 2009Citing Ring , supra, Newton's seventh argument is that "[t]he trial court's failure to instruct the jury that it had to be unanimous as to aggravating circumstances violated [his] rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." (Newton's brief at p. 36.) We addressed and rejected a similar argument in Blackmon v. State , 7 So. 3d 397 , 432-33 (Ala. Crim.	1	2
Reeves v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2000 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Newton’s ninth argument is that “[t]he lack of a standard or measure for determining whether aggravating circumstances so outweigh mitigating circumstances as to support a death sentence violated [his] rights to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, due process of law and equal protection of the law.” (Newton’s brief at p. 38.) In Reeves v. State, 807 So.2d 18, 46-47 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), we addressed a similar argument as follows: “The appellant contends that Alabama’s capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because, he says, it ‘does not specify a measure or standard by which ag 2009Newton's ninth argument is that "[t]he lack of a standard or measure for determining whether aggravating circumstances so outweigh mitigating circumstances as to support a death sentence violated [his] rights to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, due process of law and equal protection of the law." (Newton's brief at p. 38.) In Reeves v. State , 807 So. 2d 18 , 46-47 (Ala. Crim.	1	2
People v. Richardsongreen ill · 2000 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Dec. 109, 122 , 727 N.E.2d 362, 375 (2000) ("Since a post-conviction petitioner does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel … there is no constitutional obligation to provide post-conviction counsel with investigative resources."). 17 CR-2023-0953 The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying Newton's motion for funds for Newton to retain experts for the postconviction proceedings.	1	1
Reed v. Brunsongreen ala · 1988 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Instead, in his petition, he contends that his injuries "result[ed] from activities by the [Wrights] which created a substantial certainty of injury." (Emphasis added.) The substantial-certainty standard can be traced to this Court's decision in Reed v. Brunson, 527 So.2d 102, 120 (Ala.1988), in which we stated, in pertinent part: "[W]e believe the Legislature sought to [e]nsure that these kinds of cases would not be submitted to a jury without at least some evidence tending to show ... that a reasonable man in the position of the defendant would have known that a particular result (i.e., inju 2004Instead, in his petition, he contends that his injuries "result[ed] from activities by the [Wrights] which created a substantial certainty of injury." (Emphasis added.) The substantial-certainty standard can be traced to this Court's decision in Reed v. Brunson , 527 So.2d 102 , 120 (Ala. 1988), in which we stated, in pertinent part: "[W]e believe the Legislature sought to [e]nsure that these kinds of cases would not be submitted to a jury without at least some evidence tending to show . . . that a reasonable man in the position of the defendant would have known that a particular result (i.e.,	1	1
Moore v. Reevesgreen ala · 1991 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004The principles relevant to our consideration of this claim were stated in Moore v. Reeves, 589 So.2d 173, 177-79 (Ala.1991): "[W]e hold that a `safety device' or `safety guard' is that which is provided, principally, but not exclusively, as protection to an employee, which provides some shield between the employee and danger so as to prevent the employee from incurring injury while he is engaged in the performance of the service required of him by the employer: it is not something that is a component part of the machine whose principal purpose is to facilitate or expedite the work. ".... "... 2004The principles relevant to our consideration of this claim were stated in Moore v. Reeves , 589 So.2d 173 , 177-79 (Ala. 1991): "[W]e hold that a `safety device' or `safety guard' is that which is provided, principally, but not exclusively, as protection to an employee, which provides some shield between the employee and danger so as to prevent the employee from incurring injury while he is engaged in the performance of the service required of him by the employer: it is not something that is a component part of the machine whose principal purpose is to facilitate or expedite the work. ". . . .	1	1
Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeauxgreen scotus · 1987 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Co. v. Dedeaux , 481 U.S. at 54 , 107 S.Ct. at 1556 , 95 L.Ed.2d at 52." Applying these factors, the court concluded that the Newton rule did not "regulate insurance," as that concept is expressed in § 1144(b)(2)(A). 1995Co. v. Dedeaux , 481 U.S. at 54 , 107 S.Ct. at 1556 , 95 L.Ed.2d at 52." Applying these factors, the court concluded that the Newton rule did not "regulate insurance," as that concept is expressed in § 1144(b)(2)(A).	1	1
Mead v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986See Mead v. State, 449 So.2d 1279 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); O’Such v. State, 423 So.2d 317 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Taylor v. State green alacrimapp · 1994 2 sentences 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2009Taylor v. State , 666 So. 2d 36 (Ala. Cr.	2	2009–2009
Ex Parte Sockwell green ala · 1995 2 sentences 2009Newton’s sixth argument is that “[t]he death qualification of the jury in this case violated [his] rights to an impartial jury and to due process of law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” (Newton’s brief at p. 34.) We addressed and rejected a similar contention in Sockwell v. State, 675 So.2d 4, 17-18 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 675 So.2d 38 (Ala.1995), as follows: “The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to quash the jury venire because, he argues, the prosecutor acknowledged that she had challenged by peremptory strikes tho 2009App. 1993), aff'd, 675 So. 2d 38 (Ala. 1995), as follows: "The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in failing to quash the jury venire because, he argues, the prosecutor acknowledged that she had challenged by peremptory strikes those veniremembers who had expressed a hesitancy to impose the death sentence, and thus, he argues, she was seeking a jury more prone to convict a capital defendant.	2	2009–2009
Ex Parte Rhone green ala · 2004 1 sentence 2024In a three-paragraph argument in his brief to this Court, Newton asserts that, although 9 CR-2023-0953 amendments to postconviction petitions are within the discretion of the postconviction court, those amendments "should be freely granted" and "only grounds such as actual prejudice or undue delay will support a trial court's refusal to allow, or to consider, an amendment to a Rule 32 petition." (Newton's brief at pp. 13-14.) He relies on the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Rhone, 900 So. 2d 455 (Ala. 2004), to support his argument.	1	2024–2024
Taylor v. State green alacrimapp · 1994 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Ex Parte Taylor green ala · 1995 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Thomas v. Chater green scotus · 1996 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
San Miguel v. United States green scotus · 1996 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Ex Parte White green ala · 1991 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
White v. State green alacrimapp · 1990 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Schulz v. Washington County green scotus · 1992 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Thomas v. 3201 Caughey Road green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Maes v. Thomas green scotus · 1995 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Scott v. Kernan green scotus · 1995 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Burton v. State green alacrimapp · 1993 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
Ex Parte Burton green ala · 1994 1 sentence 2009Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), on remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996); Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995); White v. State, 587 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 837 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2009–2009
cluster 575913 green ca11 · 1992 2 sentences 1995Willett v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama , 953 F.2d 1335 , 1341 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1992). 1995Willett v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama , 953 F.2d 1335 , 1341 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1992).	1	1995–1995
O'SUCH v. State green alacrimapp · 1982 1 sentence 1986See Mead v. State, 449 So.2d 1279 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); O’Such v. State, 423 So.2d 317 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).	1	1986–1986

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-46 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 11 (1984–2026) AL 7 (1986–2024) TX 5 (2003–2010) CA 4 (1991–2025) MD 4 (2022–2023) DE 3 (2015–2024) FL 3 (1949–1988) UT 3 (2018–2025) CO 2 (2012–2013) SC 2 (2012–2012) NY 2 (1985–2022) DC 2 (1996–2004)

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

Your account

Appearance