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.
48 Florida opinions name it 4 courts 1925–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duckworth v. Eagangreen2 sentences2007See Duckworth, 492 U.S. at 202 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 ; Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 . 2007See Duckworth, 492 U.S. at 202, 109 S.Ct. 2875 ; Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 . | 2 | 2 |
Hodges v. Stategreen2 sentences2005This Court has repeatedly held that "[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal." Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996 , 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091 , 124 S.Ct. 961 , 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). 1994Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hogangreen2 sentences1989E.g., State v. Hogan, 451 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 1984) ("a capital case is one where death is a possible penalty"); Lowe v. Stack, 326 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1974) (first degree murder requires indictment rather than information); Bradley v. State, 374 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same); State ex rel. 1989E.g., State v. Hogan, 451 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla.1984) (“a capital case is one where death is a possible penalty”); Lowe v. Stack, 326 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974) (first degree murder requires indictment rather than information); Bradley v. State, 374 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same); State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Salamongreen2 sentences2007Recently, in Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So.2d 598 (Fla.2006), the supreme court described rule 1.525 as establishing "a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees." Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363 (Fla.2005) interpreted rule 1.420(e) by its "plain meaning" to "further the purpose of decreasing litigation over the purpose of the rule and fostering the smooth administration of the trial court's docket." Id. at 158. 2007The goal is to "strictly construe provisions to create rules that are clear-cut and easy to apply." Stowe, 937 So.2d at 158 ; see also Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc., 930 So.2d at 600 (describing rule 1.525 as establishing "a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees"); Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363, 367 (Fla. 2005) (interpreting rule 1.420(e) "by its plain meaning" to "further the purpose of decreasing litigation over the purpose of the rule and fostering the smooth administration of the trial court's docket"); Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2005) (adopt | 1 | 3 |
Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reidgreen2 sentences2007Recently, in Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So.2d 598 (Fla.2006), the supreme court described rule 1.525 as establishing "a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees." Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363 (Fla.2005) interpreted rule 1.420(e) by its "plain meaning" to "further the purpose of decreasing litigation over the purpose of the rule and fostering the smooth administration of the trial court's docket." Id. at 158. 2007The goal is to "strictly construe provisions to create rules that are clear-cut and easy to apply." Stowe, 937 So.2d at 158 ; see also Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc., 930 So.2d at 600 (describing rule 1.525 as establishing "a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees"); Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363, 367 (Fla. 2005) (interpreting rule 1.420(e) "by its plain meaning" to "further the purpose of decreasing litigation over the purpose of the rule and fostering the smooth administration of the trial court's docket"); Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2005) (adopt | 1 | 3 |
Roberts v. Singletarygreen2 sentences2002See Roberts v. Singletary, 626 So.2d 168 (Fla.1993). 1996Id. at 168-69 . | 1 | 2 |
Sochor v. Floridagreen2 sentences1996As the Supreme Court explained in Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527 , [538], 112 S.Ct. 2114, 2122 , 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992), while a jury is likely to disregard an aggravating factor upon which it has been properly instructed but which is unsupported by the evidence, the jury is "unlikely to disregard a theory flawed in law." See also Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 59 , 112 S.Ct. 466, 474 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991) ("When jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and experience will save them from th 1996As the Supreme Court explained in Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527 , [538], 112 S.Ct. 2114, 2122 , 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992), while a jury is likely to disregard an aggravating factor upon which it has been properly instructed but which is unsupported by the evidence, the jury is "unlikely to disregard a theory flawed in law." See also Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 59 , 112 S.Ct. 466, 474 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991) ("When jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and experience will save them from th | 1 | 2 |
McKnight v. Evancheckgreen1 sentence2017See McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming a dismissal for fraud on the court based on medical records and where neither party requested an evidentiary hearing); Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (affirming dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court after the trial court conducted a hearing and reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and deposition); Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming dismissal for fraud on the court and finding that the plaintiff fail | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Swoffordgreen1 sentence2017See McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming a dismissal for fraud on the court based on medical records and where neither party requested an evidentiary hearing); Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (affirming dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court after the trial court conducted a hearing and reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and deposition); Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming dismissal for fraud on the court and finding that the plaintiff fail | 1 | 1 |
Savino v. FLA. DRIVE IN THEATRE MANAGEMENTgreen1 sentence2017See McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming a dismissal for fraud on the court based on medical records and where neither party requested an evidentiary hearing); Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (affirming dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court after the trial court conducted a hearing and reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and deposition); Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming dismissal for fraud on the court and finding that the plaintiff fail | 1 | 1 |
Sharwell v. Kaiser Permanentegreen1 sentence2005This Court has repeatedly held that "[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal." Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996 , 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091 , 124 S.Ct. 961 , 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Wansing v. Hinesgreen1 sentence2005This Court has repeatedly held that "[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal." Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996 , 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091 , 124 S.Ct. 961 , 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Dukes v. Whitegreen1 sentence2005This Court has repeatedly held that "[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal." Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996 , 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091 , 124 S.Ct. 961 , 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Stategreen1 sentence2005This Court has repeatedly held that "[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal." Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996 , 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091 , 124 S.Ct. 961 , 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Notar v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.green1 sentence2000See id. (citing section 733.704, Florida Statutes (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
| Griffin v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harold S. Alston v. Walter Redman, Warden Charles M. Oberly, Iii, Attorney General of the State of Delaware and the State of Delawaregreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Matthew Lagronegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Eric Lawrence Wrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mills v. Singletarygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Medina v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walker v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Standard Jury Instructionsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wiggins v. Portmay Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ortega v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| DEPT. OF PROFESSIONAL REG. v. Hallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Department of Business Regulation v. NK, INC.green | 1 | 1 |
| Communities Fin. Corp. v. FLORIDA, ETC.green | 1 | 1 |
| Junco v. State Bd. of Accountancygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fundgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Coulter v. Davingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fare v. Michael C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Grantham v. Wainwrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Paul Bros. v. Long Branch & Lakeside Special Road & Bridge Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
California v. Prysock
green
2 sentences2007In California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 , 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981), the Court, pointing to the reference in Miranda to “a fully effective equivalent,” stated that “Miranda itself indicated that no talismanic incantation was required to satisfy its strictures.” The Prysock Court rejected any suggestion of a “desirable rigidity in the form of the required warnings.” Id. 2007In California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 , 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981), the Court, pointing to the reference in Miranda to “a fully effective equivalent,” stated that “Miranda itself indicated that no talismanic incantation was required to satisfy its strictures.” The Prysock Court rejected any suggestion of a “desirable rigidity in the form of the required warnings.” Id. | 4 | 1983–2007 |
Chiquita Kiara Floyd v. Stacy L. Smith, Jason Owen Smith
green
2 sentences2020In Floyd, the First District considered whether a proposal for settlement had to contain “a certificate of service in the form required by rule 1.080.” Floyd, 160 So. 3d at 569 (quoting Fla. R. 2019In Floyd , the First District considered whether a proposal for settlement had to contain "a certificate of service in the form required by rule 1.080." Floyd , 160 So.3d at 569 (quoting Fla. R. | 3 | 2017–2020 |
Lamb v. Matetzschk
green
2 sentences2007Thus, Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla.2005), adopted a bright line rule concerning the form of a rule 1.442 proposal for settlement. 2007The goal is to "strictly construe provisions to create rules that are clear-cut and easy to apply." Stowe, 937 So.2d at 158 ; see also Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc., 930 So.2d at 600 (describing rule 1.525 as establishing "a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees"); Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363, 367 (Fla. 2005) (interpreting rule 1.420(e) "by its plain meaning" to "further the purpose of decreasing litigation over the purpose of the rule and fostering the smooth administration of the trial court's docket"); Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2005) (adopt | 3 | 2006–2007 |
Espinosa v. Florida
green
2 sentences1994Green did not object at trial to the form of the instruction, which is necessary to preserve a claim under Espinosa v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992). 1994Green did not object at trial to the form of the instruction, which is necessary to preserve a claim under Espinosa v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992). | 3 | 1992–1994 |
Hodges v. Florida
neutral
2 sentences2005This Court has repeatedly held that "[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal." Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996 , 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091 , 124 S.Ct. 961 , 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). 1994Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993). | 2 | 1994–2005 |
Melendez v. State
green
2 sentences2005This Court has repeatedly held that "[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal." Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996 , 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091 , 124 S.Ct. 961 , 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). 1993E.g., Thompson v. State, 619 So.2d 261 (Fla. 1993); Burns v. State, 609 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1992); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 1992); see Sochor v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2114 , 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992). | 2 | 1993–2005 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1993James did not object to the form of that instruction, and his current argument as to its validity is procedurally barred. [4] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) 1993James did not object to the form of that instruction, and his current argument as to its validity is procedurally barred. [4] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) | 2 | 1993–2004 |
Bradley v. State
neutral
2 sentences1989E.g., State v. Hogan, 451 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 1984) ("a capital case is one where death is a possible penalty"); Lowe v. Stack, 326 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1974) (first degree murder requires indictment rather than information); Bradley v. State, 374 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same); State ex rel. 1989E.g., State v. Hogan, 451 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla.1984) (“a capital case is one where death is a possible penalty”); Lowe v. Stack, 326 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974) (first degree murder requires indictment rather than information); Bradley v. State, 374 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same); State ex rel. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Lowe v. Stack
neutral
2 sentences1989E.g., State v. Hogan, 451 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 1984) ("a capital case is one where death is a possible penalty"); Lowe v. Stack, 326 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1974) (first degree murder requires indictment rather than information); Bradley v. State, 374 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same); State ex rel. 1989E.g., State v. Hogan, 451 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla.1984) (“a capital case is one where death is a possible penalty”); Lowe v. Stack, 326 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974) (first degree murder requires indictment rather than information); Bradley v. State, 374 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same); State ex rel. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Rutherford v. Moore
green
1 sentence2020In response to the prosecutor asking whether defense counsel was not asking specific questions “because you’re worried [Appellant’s] going to commit perjury,” defense counsel answered “I’m not saying that.” The sidebar only involved discussion as to the form in which defense counsel could present Appellant’s testimony, a “purely legal matter[].” Rutherford, 774 So. 2d at 647 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Allen v. State
green
1 sentence2020We agree. i. The circuit court correctly followed the Third District’s decision in Detournay v. City of Coral Gables, 127 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stowe v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CAS. INS. CO.
green
1 sentence2007The goal is to "strictly construe provisions to create rules that are clear-cut and easy to apply." Stowe, 937 So.2d at 158 ; see also Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc., 930 So.2d at 600 (describing rule 1.525 as establishing "a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees"); Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363, 367 (Fla. 2005) (interpreting rule 1.420(e) "by its plain meaning" to "further the purpose of decreasing litigation over the purpose of the rule and fostering the smooth administration of the trial court's docket"); Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2005) (adopt | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Smith v. Tennessee
green
1 sentence2005This Court has repeatedly held that "[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal." Hodges v. State, 619 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996 , 114 S.Ct. 560 , 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091 , 124 S.Ct. 961 , 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1992). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Fuentes v. Shevin
green
2 sentences2000Fuentes recognized that although due process requires a hearing prior to a governmental taking depriving one of a "significant property interest," there may be "variances in the form of a hearing `appropriate to the nature of the case.'" Fuentes also held that such hearing should be held "before" the deprivation, "except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event." Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 81-82 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 . 2000Fuentes recognized that although due process requires a hearing prior to a governmental taking depriving one of a "significant property interest," there may be "variances in the form of a hearing `appropriate to the nature of the case.'" Fuentes also held that such hearing should be held "before" the deprivation, "except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event." Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 81-82 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Stringer v. Black green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
red
2 sentences1996Government in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege in the absence of a state grant of immunity.” Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52, 79 , 84 S.Ct. 1594, 1610 , 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964). 1996Government in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege in the absence of a state grant of immunity.” Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52, 79 , 84 S.Ct. 1594, 1610 , 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Crump v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| United States v. Rainford T. Thompson green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Cardona v. Florida green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Mehl v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. DiGuilio green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Walker v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Burns v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Waite v. Waite green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Thompson v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| cluster 557872 green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Rojas v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Burley Clifton Harryman v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| ADAMS PACKING ASS'N, INC. v. Florida Dept. of Citrus green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State, Dept. of Adm., Etc. v. State, Dept. of Adm., Etc. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Department of Rev. of Fla. v. Young American Bldrs. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Gulf Pines Memorial Park, Inc. v. Oaklawn Memorial Park, Inc. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Boone v. Division of Family Services, State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Giles v. Maryland green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| AB Taff & Sons v. Clark green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Novack v. Novack green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Bedell v. Wilson green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Gross v. Cohen neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Advertects, Inc. v. Sawyer Industries green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.