53 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jennings v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Jennings v. State, 806 P.2d 1299, 1302 (Wyo.1991) (quoting Munson v. State, 770 P.2d 1098 , 1095 (Wyo.1989)). 2004Jennings v. State, 806 P.2d 1299, 1302 (Wyo.1991) (quoting Munson v. State, 770 P.2d 1093, 1095 (Wyo.1989)). | 8 | 8 |
Munson v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Jennings v. State, 806 P.2d 1299, 1302 (Wyo.1991) (quoting Munson v. State, 770 P.2d 1093, 1095 (Wyo.1989)). 2003Jennings v. State, 806 P.2d 1299, 1302 (Wyo.1991) (quoting Munson v. State, 770 P.2d 1093, 1095 (Wyo.1989)). | 7 | 7 |
Statezny v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Dettloff v. State, 2007 WY 29, ¶ 23 , 152 P.3d 376, 383 (Wyo.2007); Statezny v. State, 2001 WY 22, ¶ 15 , 18 P.3d 641, 645 (Wyo.2001). 2011Dettloff v. State, 2007 WY 29, ¶ 23 , 152 P.3d 376, 383 (Wyo.2007); Statezny v. State, 2001 WY 22, ¶ 15 , 18 P.3d 641, 645 (Wyo.2001). | 4 | 4 |
Dettloff v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Dettloff v. State, 2007 WY 29, ¶ 23 , 152 P.3d 376, 383 (Wyo.2007); Statezny v. State, 2001 WY 22, ¶ 15 , 18 P.3d 641, 645 (Wyo.2001). 2011Dettloff v. State, 2007 WY 29, ¶ 23 , 152 P.3d 376, 383 (Wyo.2007); Statezny v. State, 2001 WY 22, ¶ 15 , 18 P.3d 641, 645 (Wyo.2001). | 4 | 4 |
Broom v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Broom v. State, 695 P.2d 640, 642 (Wyo.1985) (citations omitted)[.] [125] In Kenyon v. State, 2004 WY 100, ¶ 14 , 96 P.3d 1016, 1022 (Wyo.2004) (quoting May v. State, 2003 WY 14, ¶ 11 , 62 P.3d 574, 578 (Wyo.2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted)), we stated: When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal case, we must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 1993The sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard “requires us to ‘leave out of consideration entirely the evidence of the defendant in conflict’ with the evidence of the prosecution.” Broom v. State, 695 P.2d 640, 642 (Wyo.1985) (quoting Harvey v. State, 596 P.2d 1386, 1387 (Wyo.1979)). | 3 | 3 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Martinez v. State, 2009 WY 6, ¶ 11 , 199 P.3d 526, 530 (Wyo.2009) (citing Aragon v. State, 627 P.2d 599, 602 (Wyo.1981)). 2015See Martinez v. State, 2009 WY 6, ¶ 11 , 199 P.3d 526, 530 (Wyo.2009) (citing Aragon v. State, 627 P.2d 599, 602 (Wyo.1981)). | 2 | 2 |
Lopez v. Stategreen2 sentences2006STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 9] When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal case, we "assess whether all of the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State." Michaelis v. State, 2005 WY 80, ¶ 3 , 115 P.3d 1098, 1100 (Wyo.2005) (quoting Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 16 , 86 P.3d 851, 855 (Wyo.2004); and Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 2003 WY 45, ¶ 6 , 66 P.3d 703, 707 (Wyo.2003)). 2006STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 9] When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal case, we "assess whether all of the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State." Michaelis v. State, 2005 WY 80, ¶ 3 , 115 P.3d 1098, 1100 (Wyo.2005) (quoting Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 16 , 86 P.3d 851, 855 (Wyo.2004); and Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 2003 WY 45, ¶ 6 , 66 P.3d 703, 707 (Wyo.2003)). | 2 | 2 |
Grissom v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Dettloff v. State, 2007 WY 29, ¶22 , 152 P.3d 376, 383 (Wyo.2007); Grissom v. State, 2005 WY 132, ¶24 , 121 P.3d 127, 136 (Wyo.2005). 2008Dettloff v. State, 2007 WY 29, ¶22 , 152 P.3d 376, 383 (Wyo.2007); Grissom v. State, 2005 WY 132, ¶24 , 121 P.3d 127, 136 (Wyo.2005). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2004STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 8] We stated in Hughes v. State, 2003 WY 35, ¶ 23 , 65 P.3d 378, ¶ 23 (Wyo.2003) (quoting Williams v. State, 986 P.2d 855, 857 (Wyo.1999)): When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal case, we must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 2000Williams v. State, 986 P.2d 855, 857 (Wyo.1999). | 2 | 2 |
Harvey v. Stategreen2 sentences1993The sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard “requires us to ‘leave out of consideration entirely the evidence of the defendant in conflict’ with the evidence of the prosecution.” Broom v. State, 695 P.2d 640, 642 (Wyo.1985) (quoting Harvey v. State, 596 P.2d 1386, 1387 (Wyo.1979)). 1991Our standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is set forth in Broom v. State, 695 P.2d 640, 642 (Wyo.1985) (quoting Harvey v. State, 596 P.2d 1386, 1387 (Wyo.1979)): “[I]t is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for us, but rather whether it is sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by the jury when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” Wyo.Stat. § 6-3-402 (1988) provides in pertinent part: (a) A person who steals, takes and carries, leads or drives away | 2 | 2 |
Walter v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Walter v. State, 811 P.2d 716, 719 (Wyo.1991). 1992Walter v. State, 811 P.2d 716, 719 (Wyo.1991). | 2 | 2 |
Ivan Lee Sweets, Sr. v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2017STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶15] When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must accept as true the State’s evidence and give it the benefit of all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it, Sweets v. State, 2013 WY 98, ¶ 14 , 307 P.3d 860, 865 (Wyo. 2013). 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶15] When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must accept as true the State’s evidence and give it the benefit of all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it, Sweets v. State, 2013 WY 98, ¶ 14 , 307 P.3d 860, 865 (Wyo. 2013). | 1 | 2 |
Tanner v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See also Ken, 17, 267 P.3d at 572 ; Tanner v. State, 2002 WY 170, ¶17 , 57 P.3d 1242, 1247 (Wyo.2002); Burks v. United States, 4837 U.S. 1 , 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). [112] In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim: we examine and accept as true the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. 2014See also Ken, 17, 267 P.3d at 572 ; Tanner v. State, 2002 WY 170, ¶17 , 57 P.3d 1242, 1247 (Wyo.2002); Burks v. United States, 4837 U.S. 1 , 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). [112] In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim: we examine and accept as true the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. | 1 | 2 |
Granzer v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118, ¶ 23 , 193 P.3d 266, 273 (Wyo.2008); Lemus v. State, 2007 WY 111, ¶ 47 , 162 P.3d 497, 509 (Wyo.2007); Statezny v. State, 2001 WY 22, ¶ 15 , 18 P.3d 641, 645 (Wyo.2001). 2010Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118, ¶ 23 , 193 P.3d 266, 273 (Wyo.2008); Lemus v. State, 2007 WY 111, ¶ 47 , 162 P.3d 497, 509 (Wyo.2007); Statezny v. State, 2001 WY 22, ¶ 15 , 18 P.3d 641, 645 (Wyo.2001). | 1 | 2 |
Everett L. Bray v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2026Bray v. State, 2024 WY 120, ¶ 12 , 559 P.3d 149, 151 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting Kobielusz v. State, 2024 WY 10, ¶ 22 , 541 P.3d 1101, 1107-08 (Wyo. 2024) (citation omitted)). 2026Bray v. State, 2024 WY 120, ¶ 12 , 559 P.3d 149, 151 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting Kobielusz v. State, 2024 WY 10, ¶ 22 , 541 P.3d 1101, 1107-08 (Wyo. 2024) (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Shaun Thomas Kobielusz v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2026Bray v. State, 2024 WY 120, ¶ 12 , 559 P.3d 149, 151 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting Kobielusz v. State, 2024 WY 10, ¶ 22 , 541 P.3d 1101, 1107-08 (Wyo. 2024) (citation omitted)). 2026Bray v. State, 2024 WY 120, ¶ 12 , 559 P.3d 149, 151 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting Kobielusz v. State, 2024 WY 10, ¶ 22 , 541 P.3d 1101, 1107-08 (Wyo. 2024) (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Daniel E. Borja, Sr. v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024In considering the sufficiency of the evidence claim, we “need not determine whether the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Borja v. State, 2023 WY 12, ¶ 8 , 523 P.3d 1212, 1215 (Wyo. 2023) (citing Mitchell v. State, 2020 WY 142, ¶ 33 , 476 P.3d 224, 237 (Wyo. 2020)). 2024In considering the sufficiency of the evidence claim, we “need not determine whether the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Borja v. State, 2023 WY 12, ¶ 8 , 523 P.3d 1212, 1215 (Wyo. 2023) (citing Mitchell v. State, 2020 WY 142, ¶ 33 , 476 P.3d 224, 237 (Wyo. 2020)). | 1 | 1 |
Jorge F. Gonzalez-Chavarria v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024Standard of Review [¶22] When presented with a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court determines “whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of a charged crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented.” Morones v. State, 2020 WY 85, ¶ 8 , 466 P.3d 300, 303 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Gonzalez-Chavarria v. State, 2019 WY 100, ¶ 22 , 449 P.3d 1094, 1099 (Wyo. 2019)). 2024Standard of Review [¶22] When presented with a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court determines “whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of a charged crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented.” Morones v. State, 2020 WY 85, ¶ 8 , 466 P.3d 300, 303 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Gonzalez-Chavarria v. State, 2019 WY 100, ¶ 22 , 449 P.3d 1094, 1099 (Wyo. 2019)). | 1 | 1 |
Mario Alberto Morones v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024Standard of Review [¶22] When presented with a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court determines “whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of a charged crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented.” Morones v. State, 2020 WY 85, ¶ 8 , 466 P.3d 300, 303 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Gonzalez-Chavarria v. State, 2019 WY 100, ¶ 22 , 449 P.3d 1094, 1099 (Wyo. 2019)). 2024Standard of Review [¶22] When presented with a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court determines “whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of a charged crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented.” Morones v. State, 2020 WY 85, ¶ 8 , 466 P.3d 300, 303 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Gonzalez-Chavarria v. State, 2019 WY 100, ¶ 22 , 449 P.3d 1094, 1099 (Wyo. 2019)). | 1 | 1 |
Dallas Clem Mitchell v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024In considering the sufficiency of the evidence claim, we “need not determine whether the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Borja v. State, 2023 WY 12, ¶ 8 , 523 P.3d 1212, 1215 (Wyo. 2023) (citing Mitchell v. State, 2020 WY 142, ¶ 33 , 476 P.3d 224, 237 (Wyo. 2020)). 2024In considering the sufficiency of the evidence claim, we “need not determine whether the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Borja v. State, 2023 WY 12, ¶ 8 , 523 P.3d 1212, 1215 (Wyo. 2023) (citing Mitchell v. State, 2020 WY 142, ¶ 33 , 476 P.3d 224, 237 (Wyo. 2020)). | 1 | 1 |
Bellis v. Kerseygreen2 sentences2022The State contends that the minor variances between the district court’s findings and the trial testimony are legally irrelevant under the sufficiency of the evidence standard of review. [¶18] When we review a bench trial for sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e may affirm a district court’s action upon any sustainable legal ground shown in the record.” In re MC, 2013 WY 43, ¶ 60 , 299 P.3d 75, 88 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Bellis v. Kersey, 2010 WY 138, ¶ 10 , 241 P.3d 818, 822 (Wyo. 2010)). 2022The State contends that the minor variances between the district court’s findings and the trial testimony are legally irrelevant under the sufficiency of the evidence standard of review. [¶18] When we review a bench trial for sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e may affirm a district court’s action upon any sustainable legal ground shown in the record.” In re MC, 2013 WY 43, ¶ 60 , 299 P.3d 75, 88 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Bellis v. Kersey, 2010 WY 138, ¶ 10 , 241 P.3d 818, 822 (Wyo. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest Of: MC, HC and CC, Minor Children, DL v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Servicesgreen2 sentences2022The State contends that the minor variances between the district court’s findings and the trial testimony are legally irrelevant under the sufficiency of the evidence standard of review. [¶18] When we review a bench trial for sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e may affirm a district court’s action upon any sustainable legal ground shown in the record.” In re MC, 2013 WY 43, ¶ 60 , 299 P.3d 75, 88 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Bellis v. Kersey, 2010 WY 138, ¶ 10 , 241 P.3d 818, 822 (Wyo. 2010)). 2022The State contends that the minor variances between the district court’s findings and the trial testimony are legally irrelevant under the sufficiency of the evidence standard of review. [¶18] When we review a bench trial for sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e may affirm a district court’s action upon any sustainable legal ground shown in the record.” In re MC, 2013 WY 43, ¶ 60 , 299 P.3d 75, 88 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Bellis v. Kersey, 2010 WY 138, ¶ 10 , 241 P.3d 818, 822 (Wyo. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Charles Alfred Armajo v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶6] We review a sufficiency of the evidence claim by determining “whether the evidence could reasonably support the jury’s verdict.” Armajo v. State, 2020 WY 153, ¶ 21 , 478 P.3d 184, 191 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Huckins v. State, 2020 WY 21, ¶ 10 , 457 P.3d 1277 , 1279 (Wyo. 2020)). 2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶6] We review a sufficiency of the evidence claim by determining “whether the evidence could reasonably support the jury’s verdict.” Armajo v. State, 2020 WY 153, ¶ 21 , 478 P.3d 184, 191 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Huckins v. State, 2020 WY 21, ¶ 10 , 457 P.3d 1277 , 1279 (Wyo. 2020)). | 1 | 1 |
Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. v. Elmore Livestock Co.green1 sentence2021Johnson Cnty., ¶ 40, 471 P.3d at 319 (quoting Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. v. Elmore Livestock Co., 669 P.2d 505, 512 (Wyo. 1983)); see also CFE Racing Prod., Inc. v. BMF Wheels, Inc., 793 F.3d 571, 583 (6th Cir. 2015) (“Even where a party has made some reference to an issue in a Rule 50(a) motion that it later invokes as the basis for its renewed motion under Rule 50(b), the issue is not preserved if it was not raised in a sufficiently substantial way in the earlier motion.”). | 1 | 1 |
CFE Racing Products, Inc. v. BMF Wheels, Inc.green1 sentence2021Johnson Cnty., ¶ 40, 471 P.3d at 319 (quoting Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. v. Elmore Livestock Co., 669 P.2d 505, 512 (Wyo. 1983)); see also CFE Racing Prod., Inc. v. BMF Wheels, Inc., 793 F.3d 571, 583 (6th Cir. 2015) (“Even where a party has made some reference to an issue in a Rule 50(a) motion that it later invokes as the basis for its renewed motion under Rule 50(b), the issue is not preserved if it was not raised in a sufficiently substantial way in the earlier motion.”). | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Flores v. State, 2017 WY 120, ¶ 11 , 403 P.3d 993, 995-96 (Wyo. 2017) (affirming lower court after Mr. Flores raised a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal and declining to analyze an alternative element instruction error because it was not raised); Triplett, 2017 WY 148, ¶ 16 , 406 P.3d at 1261 (finding that the failure to raise the issue below waived it on appeal). 2020See Flores v. State, 2017 WY 120, ¶ 11 , 403 P.3d 993, 995-96 (Wyo. 2017) (affirming lower court after Mr. Flores raised a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal and declining to analyze an alternative element instruction error because it was not raised); Triplett, 2017 WY 148, ¶ 16 , 406 P.3d at 1261 (finding that the failure to raise the issue below waived it on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Triplett v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Flores v. State, 2017 WY 120, ¶ 11 , 403 P.3d 993, 995-96 (Wyo. 2017) (affirming lower court after Mr. Flores raised a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal and declining to analyze an alternative element instruction error because it was not raised); Triplett, 2017 WY 148, ¶ 16 , 406 P.3d at 1261 (finding that the failure to raise the issue below waived it on appeal). 2020See Flores v. State, 2017 WY 120, ¶ 11 , 403 P.3d 993, 995-96 (Wyo. 2017) (affirming lower court after Mr. Flores raised a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal and declining to analyze an alternative element instruction error because it was not raised); Triplett, 2017 WY 148, ¶ 16 , 406 P.3d at 1261 (finding that the failure to raise the issue below waived it on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Schmidt v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Schmidt v. State, 2017 WY 101, ¶ 27 , 401 P.3d 868, 878 (Wyo. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 6 [¶22] “[When] reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of a charged crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented.” Bittleston, ¶ 17, 442 P.3d at 1292 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2019Schmidt v. State, 2017 WY 101, ¶ 27 , 401 P.3d 868, 878 (Wyo. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 6 [¶22] “[When] reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of a charged crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented.” Bittleston, ¶ 17, 442 P.3d at 1292 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Bittleston v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carlos Yammon Pena v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cox v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Douglas Howard Craft v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Danell Blevins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clark v. Peoplegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shafsky v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aragon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ken v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| May v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kenyon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gomez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson County Ranch Improvement 1, Llc, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company and Sand Creek Ranch Preservation Association, Inc., a Wyoming Nonprofit Corporation v. Greg L. Goddard Luke Andrew Goddard Marcia Goddard and Goddard Ranch, Llc, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company
green
1 sentence2021Johnson Cnty., ¶ 40, 471 P.3d at 319 (quoting Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. v. Elmore Livestock Co., 669 P.2d 505, 512 (Wyo. 1983)); see also CFE Racing Prod., Inc. v. BMF Wheels, Inc., 793 F.3d 571, 583 (6th Cir. 2015) (“Even where a party has made some reference to an issue in a Rule 50(a) motion that it later invokes as the basis for its renewed motion under Rule 50(b), the issue is not preserved if it was not raised in a sufficiently substantial way in the earlier motion.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Robert Arthur Huckins v. The State of Wyoming
green
1 sentence2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶6] We review a sufficiency of the evidence claim by determining “whether the evidence could reasonably support the jury’s verdict.” Armajo v. State, 2020 WY 153, ¶ 21 , 478 P.3d 184, 191 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Huckins v. State, 2020 WY 21, ¶ 10 , 457 P.3d 1277 , 1279 (Wyo. 2020)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Jessy Michael Dennis v. The State of Wyoming green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Edward Christopher Barrowes v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Jackson v. Virginia red | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Southern Railway Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Burks v. United States green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Anderson v. State neutral | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Mendicoa v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Miller v. New York Oil Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Wangler v. Federer green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Marathon Oil Company v. Kleppe green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Rodriguez v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.