46 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simms v. Stategreen2 sentences2019An alibi defense is a defendant's claim "that he [or she] was at another place at the time when the alleged crime was committed[.]" Simms , 194 Md. 2019When a criminal defendant asserts an alibi defense, he or she does so not as an affirmative defense but to "den[y] the claim of the prosecution that he was present at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed." Simms v. State , 194 Md. | 3 | 3 |
Edward v. Lawrence v. Bill Armontroutgreen2 sentences2018Id. *268 On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that, "once Lawrence provided his trial counsel with the names of potential alibi witnesses, it was unreasonable of her not to make some effort to interview all these potential witnesses to ascertain whether their testimony would aid an alibi defense." Id. 2018Id. *268 On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that, "once Lawrence provided his trial counsel with the names of potential alibi witnesses, it was unreasonable of her not to make some effort to interview all these potential witnesses to ascertain whether their testimony would aid an alibi defense." Id. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gradygreen2 sentences2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra 2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra | 2 | 9 |
Pulley v. Stategreen2 sentences2001“An alibi instruction removes the possibility that the jury will place the burden of proof upon the defendant with respect to the alibi.” 38 Md.App. at 689 , 382 A.2d 621 . 2001“An alibi instruction removes the possibility that the jury will place the burden of proof upon the defendant with respect to the alibi.” 38 Md.App. at 689 , 382 A.2d 621 . | 2 | 7 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Defense counsel simply overlooked requesting the 'alibi' jury instruction, notwithstanding his presentation of an alibi defense." In fact, Mann's trial counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that "If it's an alibi defense, you ask for an alibi instruction." Although Judge Moylan found no deficiency in counsel's "disinclination" to request the alibi instruction in Schmitt , here there was simply a "failure." Id. at 37 , 779 A.2d 1004 . 2019Defense counsel simply overlooked requesting the 'alibi' jury instruction, notwithstanding his presentation of an alibi defense." In fact, Mann's trial counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that "If it's an alibi defense, you ask for an alibi instruction." Although Judge Moylan found no deficiency in counsel's "disinclination" to request the alibi instruction in Schmitt , here there was simply a "failure." Id. at 37 , 779 A.2d 1004 . | 2 | 5 |
Williams v. Floridagreen2 sentences2010See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (“[T]he privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a requirement that the defendant give notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses.”). 2010See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (“[T]he privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a requirement that the defendant give notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses.”). | 2 | 3 |
In Re Parris W.green2 sentences2019App. 285 , 308, 4 A.3d 72 , 85 (2010) (cleaned up); see also In re Parris W ., 363 Md. 717 , 728, 770 A.2d 202 , 208 (2001) ("An alibi is not an affirmative defense[.]"). 2019App. 285 , 308, 4 A.3d 72 , 85 (2010) (cleaned up); see also In re Parris W ., 363 Md. 717 , 728, 770 A.2d 202 , 208 (2001) ("An alibi is not an affirmative defense[.]"). | 2 | 2 |
Robertson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Robertson v. State, 112 Md.App. 366, 382 , 685 A.2d 805, 810 (1996) (noting that an alibi defense is not an affirmative defense and “the defendant, himself, need not introduce alibi evidence in order to generate the basis for an instruction on the issue.”). *723 In Maryland, as in “the federal system and more than forty states,” a defendant must “give advance notice of his [or her] intent to raise an alibi defense.” Simms, 194 Md.App. at 308 , 4 A.3d at 85 (quoting Wayne R. 2011See Robertson v. State, 112 Md.App. 366, 382 , 685 A.2d 805, 810 (1996) (noting that an alibi defense is not an affirmative defense and “the defendant, himself, need not introduce alibi evidence in order to generate the basis for an instruction on the issue.”). *723 In Maryland, as in “the federal system and more than forty states,” a defendant must “give advance notice of his [or her] intent to raise an alibi defense.” Simms, 194 Md.App. at 308 , 4 A.3d at 85 (quoting Wayne R. | 1 | 5 |
Robinson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011The defendant’s right to raise an alibi defense is preserved throughout the trial because, “like any other defense testimony, [it] is simply a means of controverting the State’s effort to establish criminal agency.” Robinson v. State, 20 Md.App. 450, 459 , 316 A.2d 268 (1974). 2011The defendant’s right to raise an alibi defense is preserved throughout the trial because, “like any other defense testimony, [it] is simply a means of controverting the State’s effort to establish criminal agency.” Robinson v. State, 20 Md.App. 450, 459 , 316 A.2d 268 (1974). | 1 | 3 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra 2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra | 1 | 3 |
Floyd v. Stategreen2 sentences2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra 2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra | 1 | 3 |
Wright v. Smithgreen2 sentences2019The Pulley Court stressed the importance of giving an alibi instruction, citing *605 Wright v. Smith , 434 F.Supp. 339 , 344 (W.D.N.Y. 1977) 5 for the proposition: When a defendant raises an alibi defense, he is entitled to jury instructions that specify that the Government must bear the burden of persuasion on this element of the offense as well. 2001We quoted Wright v. Smith, 434 F.Supp. 339, 344 (W.D.N.Y.1977), to the effect that without the arguably redundant instruction, “there is a likelihood that the jury will become confused about the burden of persuasion.” Our holding was clear: *31 We find no merit in the State’s contention in the instant case that the requested alibi instruction was “fairly covered” by the trial court’s other instructions with respect to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proving the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 38 Md.App. at 690 , 382 A.2d 621 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Manngreen2 sentences2019I agree with the Court of Special Appeals that “the record here is devoid of any strategic reason for not requesting an alibi instruction.” State v. Mann, 240 Md. 2019App. 592, 601 , 207 A.3d 653, 658 (2019). | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Stategreen2 sentences2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra 2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra | 1 | 1 |
| Snyder v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Parker v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Grandison v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brogden v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Borchardt v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| McKoy v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. McFarlandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Simos v. Burkegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Coccogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Cottamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frank Johns v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institutiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Henderson v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Waddell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Jeffrey Scott Webstergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holt v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bryant v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jackson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pippins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hudson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Floridagreen2 sentences2010See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (“[T]he privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a requirement that the defendant give notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses.”). 2010See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (“[T]he privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a requirement that the defendant give notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses.”). | 1 | 3 |
| Commonwealth v. Fromalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Simms
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 738 . 2020App. 285, 320-21 (2010), aff’d on other grounds, 420 Md. 705 (2011), where this Court distinguished between permissible and impermissible argument regarding an alibi defense, as follows: Where a defendant testifies to an alibi and calls no additional witnesses to support it, the prosecution, by commenting on the nonproduction of corroborating alibi witnesses, is merely pointing out the weakness in defendant’s case. | 4 | 2020–2022 |
Donald G. Griffin v. Warden, Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center Attorney General of the State of Maryland
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2001Moreover, it is precisely the sort of evidence that an alibi defense refutes best.” Id. at 1359 . *732 Appellant’s case is also similar to Montgomery v. Petersen, 846 F.2d 407 (7th Cir.1988). | 3 | 2001–2018 |
Syed v. State
green
2 sentences2019The Court of Special Appeals explained that, "no reasonable evaluation of the advantages or disadvantages of [Ms.] McClain's alibi testimony, as compared to an alibi defense based on [Mr.] Syed's habit or routine, could be made without first contacting [Ms.] McClain." Syed , 236 Md. 2019The Court of Special Appeals explained that, “no reasonable evaluation of the advantages or disadvantages of [Ms.] McClain’s alibi testimony, as compared to an alibi defense based on [Mr.] Syed’s habit or routine, could be made without first contacting [Ms.] McClain.” Syed, 236 Md. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Schmitt v. State
green
2 sentences2019Addressing whether Schmitt's trial counsel rendered deficient performance by choosing not to request an alibi instruction, Judge Moylan began by noting that "Maryland's trial courts were through the early 1970's regularly referring to the alibi as an 'affirmative defense' and squarely allocating to the *599 defendant the burden of persuasion as to such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 28 , 779 A.2d 1004 . 2019Addressing whether Schmitt's trial counsel rendered deficient performance by choosing not to request an alibi instruction, Judge Moylan began by noting that "Maryland's trial courts were through the early 1970's regularly referring to the alibi as an 'affirmative defense' and squarely allocating to the *599 defendant the burden of persuasion as to such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 28 , 779 A.2d 1004 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Bryant v. Scott
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018Id. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Pounds
green
2 sentences2002The trial judge must convey to the jury that its “determination that the affirmative defense has not been established is essential to finding that the [State] has met its burden.” Commonwealth v. Cottam, 420 Pa.Super. 311 , 616 A.2d 988, 1000-01 (1992). 7 As in an alibi defense, “such an instruction is necessary due to the danger that the failure to prove the defense will be taken by the jury as a sign of the defendant’s guilt.” Commonwealth v. Pounds, 490 Pa. 621, 633-34 , 417 A.2d 597 (1980). 2002The trial judge must convey to the jury that its “determination that the affirmative defense has not been established is essential to finding that the [State] has met its burden.” Commonwealth v. Cottam, 420 Pa.Super. 311 , 616 A.2d 988, 1000-01 (1992). 7 As in an alibi defense, “such an instruction is necessary due to the danger that the failure to prove the defense will be taken by the jury as a sign of the defendant’s guilt.” Commonwealth v. Pounds, 490 Pa. 621, 633-34 , 417 A.2d 597 (1980). | 2 | 1985–2002 |
Bonds v. State
green
2 sentences2002To establish a rule that would allow a criminal defendant to demand such specificity by raising an alibi defense would thwart justice and, in our view, is not required by either the Maryland or United States Constitutions. 51 Md.App. at 107 , 442 A.2d 572 (emphasis supplied). 2002To establish a rule that would allow a criminal defendant to demand such specificity by raising an alibi defense would thwart justice and, in our view, is not required by either the Maryland or United States Constitutions. 51 Md.App. at 107 , 442 A.2d 572 (emphasis supplied). | 2 | 1991–2002 |
Grady v. State
green
2 sentences1996Grady v. State, 24 Md.App. 85 , 329 A.2d 726 (1974), aff'd 276 Md. 178 , 345 A.2d 436 (1975), lies at the other end of the spectrum. 1996Grady v. State, 24 Md.App. 85 , 329 A.2d 726 (1974), aff'd 276 Md. 178 , 345 A.2d 436 (1975), lies at the other end of the spectrum. | 2 | 1975–1996 |
Dillon v. State
green
2 sentences1985Brooks v. State, 53 Md.App. 285 , 452 A.2d 1285 , cert. denied, 295 Md. 529 (1982); Dillon v. State, 27 Md. 1978Under these circumstances, the court’s refusal to grant appellant’s request for an alibi instruction, where the instruction correctly stated applicable law, see Dillon v. State, 27 Md. | 2 | 1978–1985 |
Newton v. State
green
2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "The review of a postconviction court's findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact." Newton v. State , 455 Md. 341 , 351, 168 A.3d 1 (2017) (citing Harris v. State , 303 Md. 685 , 698, 496 A.2d 1074 (1985) ). 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "The review of a postconviction court's findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact." Newton v. State , 455 Md. 341 , 351, 168 A.3d 1 (2017) (citing Harris v. State , 303 Md. 685 , 698, 496 A.2d 1074 (1985) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2019The failure to request an alibi instruction, in light of the testimony from four possible alibi witnesses, constituted deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), in the absence or acknowledgement on the record that the failure was rooted in trial strategy. 2019The failure to request an alibi instruction, in light of the testimony from four possible alibi witnesses, constituted deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), in the absence or acknowledgement on the record that the failure was rooted in trial strategy. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bowers v. State
green
2 sentences2019Here, where an alibi instruction was not given because trial counsel failed to request it, there is "a substantial or significant possibility that the verdict of the trier of fact [was] affected." Bowers , 320 Md. at 426 , 578 A.2d 734 . 2019Here, where an alibi instruction was not given because trial counsel failed to request it, there is "a substantial or significant possibility that the verdict of the trier of fact [was] affected." Bowers , 320 Md. at 426 , 578 A.2d 734 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mosley v. State
green
2 sentences2019Mosley , 378 Md. at 558 , 836 A.2d 678 . 2019Mosley , 378 Md. at 558 , 836 A.2d 678 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "The review of a postconviction court's findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact." Newton v. State , 455 Md. 341 , 351, 168 A.3d 1 (2017) (citing Harris v. State , 303 Md. 685 , 698, 496 A.2d 1074 (1985) ). 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW "The review of a postconviction court's findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact." Newton v. State , 455 Md. 341 , 351, 168 A.3d 1 (2017) (citing Harris v. State , 303 Md. 685 , 698, 496 A.2d 1074 (1985) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Douglas v. State
green
2 sentences2014As Hawes correctly asserts, the Douglas Court also held that the requirement in section 8-301(b) that a petitioner “distinguish the newly discovered evidence claimed in the petition from any claims made in prior petitions” encompasses claims made in prior petitions for writs of actual innocence, not claims made in prior petitions filed under the UPPA. 423 Md. at 184-185 , 31 A.3d 250 (“[The defendant] asserts that the phrase 'prior petitions’ does not refer to every prior filing. 2014As Hawes correctly asserts, the Douglas Court also held that the requirement in section 8-301(b) that a petitioner “distinguish the newly discovered evidence claimed in the petition from any claims made in prior petitions” encompasses claims made in prior petitions for writs of actual innocence, not claims made in prior petitions filed under the UPPA. 423 Md. at 184-185 , 31 A.3d 250 (“[The defendant] asserts that the phrase 'prior petitions’ does not refer to every prior filing. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wills v. State
green
2 sentences2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra 2012If a rule does not squarely amend a prior rule, but merely clarifies it or comments on dicta associated with it, then it will not qualify as “not previously recognized.” See Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 151-52 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997) (holding that Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370 , 620 A.2d 295 (1993) did not “alter existing case law” relating to the reasonable doubt jury instruction, and that language in Wills relied upon by the petitioner as a new rule was not part of the holding in that case); see also Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 23-31 , 400 A.2d 406, 408-12 (1979) (holding that State v. Gra | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Marshall v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Taliaferro v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Cocco neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Taliaferro v. Maryland green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Stallworth v. Detroit Board of Education green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Welty v. United States green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Miller v. United States green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Salisbury v. United States neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Jones v. Jones green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Kelly v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Hutchinson green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Hayes v. Mountain Comprehensive Care Center green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Trice v. Moore green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Pride v. Ward green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Ware v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| cluster 657232 green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Darrel Wayne Hill, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellant/cross-Appellee green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Mulkey green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Mathews v. United States green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Gross green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Carl William Montgomery v. Dale Petersen green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Eastman v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.