45 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2026 16 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2025That is because, from the legislative history dis- cussed above, we understand the legislature to have intended “openly” to have its ordinary meaning, i.e., “without conceal- ment,” and “in plain view” to have its “established meaning in criminal law,” i.e., “something that is plainly observable to the officer.” Testimony, Senate Committee on Judiciary, HB 2704, June 2, 2015 (statement of Kimberly McCullough, Legislative Director of the ACLU of Oregon); see Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1580 (unabridged ed 2002) (“openly” means “in an open manner : freely and without concealment”); see 2025That is because, from the legislative history dis- cussed above, we understand the legislature to have intended “openly” to have its ordinary meaning, i.e., “without conceal- ment,” and “in plain view” to have its “established meaning in criminal law,” i.e., “something that is plainly observable to the officer.” Testimony, Senate Committee on Judiciary, HB 2704, June 2, 2015 (statement of Kimberly McCullough, Legislative Director of the ACLU of Oregon); see Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1580 (unabridged ed 2002) (“openly” means “in an open manner : freely and without concealment”); see | 4 | 4 |
Nelson v. Lane Countygreen2 sentences1992Nelson v. Lane County, supra, 304 Or at 104, n 5 [ 743 P.2d 692 ]; see also State v. Pidcock, supra . 1992Nelson v. Lane County, supra, 304 Or at 104, n 5 [ 743 P.2d 692 ]; see also State v. Pidcock, supra . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Sagnergreen2 sentences2024Framed slightly differently, the items seized under the plain-view exception must be “obvious evi- dence of crime,” State v. Sagner, 12 Or App 459, 473 , 506 P2d 510 , rev den (1973). 2024Framed slightly differently, the items seized under the plain-view exception must be “obvious evi- dence of crime,” State v. Sagner, 12 Or App 459, 473 , 506 P2d 510 , rev den (1973). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Johnson, 335 Or 511 , 73 P3d 282 (2003) (the state must show that, if evidence seized pursuant to a warrant is connected to some prior gov- ernmental misconduct, the warranted seizure is not tainted by that misconduct).5 We further conclude that police law- fully seized the Sony video camera and mermaid drawing under the plain-view exception; and that the 2015 warrant 4 As noted above, although the warrant included some unlawful portions, the command to seize the video camera was presumably valid such that the warrant authorized police to search defendant’s house. 2024See State v. Johnson, 335 Or 511 , 73 P3d 282 (2003) (the state must show that, if evidence seized pursuant to a warrant is connected to some prior gov- ernmental misconduct, the warranted seizure is not tainted by that misconduct).5 We further conclude that police law- fully seized the Sony video camera and mermaid drawing under the plain-view exception; and that the 2015 warrant 4 As noted above, although the warrant included some unlawful portions, the command to seize the video camera was presumably valid such that the warrant authorized police to search defendant’s house. | 2 | 2 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences1992We held that property may be seized under the plain view doctrine if: “(1) there is prior valid intrusion; (2) the discovery is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. * * * ‘[P]lain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence.’ ” 97 Or App at 550 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 468 , 91 S Ct 2022 , 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971)). 1992We held that property may be seized under the plain view doctrine if: “(1) there is prior valid intrusion; (2) the discovery is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. * * * ‘[P]lain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence.’ ” 97 Or App at 550 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 468 , 91 S Ct 2022 , 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971)). | 1 | 9 |
State v. Curringreen2 sentences2026“Under the plain-view doctrine, an officer may seize an item if the officer can do so from a position where that officer is entitled to be and the incriminating character of the item to be seized is immediately apparent.” State v. Currin, 258 Or App 715, 718-19 , 311 P3d 903 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2026“Under the plain-view doctrine, an officer may seize an item if the officer can do so from a position where that officer is entitled to be and the incriminating character of the item to be seized is immediately apparent.” State v. Currin, 258 Or App 715, 718-19 , 311 P3d 903 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 7 |
State v. Mansorgreen2 sentences2023We explained, citing Mansor, 363 Or at 220 , that the breadth of a search required of dig- ital material “is what renders the plain view doctrine inap- plicable; the alternative would sanction the sort of general warrant that the plain view doctrine was never meant to authorize.” Bock (A169480), 310 Or App at 340 . 2023In State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 220, 223 , 421 P3d 323 (2018), the Supreme Court held that when law enforce- ment conducts a reasonable forensic examination of a com- puter pursuant to a lawful warrant, and the examina- tion “reveal[s] information that is beyond the scope of the warrant”—by virtue of the inherent nature of a forensic examination, rather than any overreaching by law enforce- ment—“a defendant’s Article I, section 9, privacy rights pre- vent the state from using such information unless it comes within an exception to the warrant requirement.” The Supreme Court left open in Manso | 1 | 6 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2018See State v. Carter , 200 Or.App. 262 , 268, 113 P.3d 969 (2005), aff'd , 342 Or. 39 , 147 P.3d 1151 (2006) (remanding to the trial court because "there remain[ed] issues of fact regarding whether the incriminating character of the evidence [was] 'immediately apparent' " *787 as is required by the plain-view exception (quoting State v. Sargent , 323 Or. 455 , 463 n. 5, 918 P.2d 819 (1996) )). 2018See State v. Carter , 200 Or.App. 262 , 268, 113 P.3d 969 (2005), aff'd , 342 Or. 39 , 147 P.3d 1151 (2006) (remanding to the trial court because "there remain[ed] issues of fact regarding whether the incriminating character of the evidence [was] 'immediately apparent' " *787 as is required by the plain-view exception (quoting State v. Sargent , 323 Or. 455 , 463 n. 5, 918 P.2d 819 (1996) )). | 1 | 6 |
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences2016We do note, however, that defendant’s argument against the applicability of that exception is based on an outdated rule that, in order for the plain-view exception to apply, the discovery of the evidence must be “inadvertent.” See State v. Handran, 97 Or App 546, 550 , 777 P2d 981 (1989), overruled by State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126 , 834 P2d 488 (1992), abrogated by Horton v. California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 , 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990). 2016We do note, however, that defendant’s argument against the applicability of that exception is based on an outdated rule that, in order for the plain-view exception to apply, the discovery of the evidence must be “inadvertent.” See State v. Handran, 97 Or App 546, 550 , 777 P2d 981 (1989), overruled by State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126 , 834 P2d 488 (1992), abrogated by Horton v. California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 , 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2024The plain-view exception “authorizes seizure of evidence under circumstances where the police are in a place where they are entitled to be when they observe the evidence in plain view and the incriminat- ing character of the evidence is ‘immediately apparent.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). 2024The plain-view exception “authorizes seizure of evidence under circumstances where the police are in a place where they are entitled to be when they observe the evidence in plain view and the incriminat- ing character of the evidence is ‘immediately apparent.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Petersonred2 sentences2016We do note, however, that defendant’s argument against the applicability of that exception is based on an outdated rule that, in order for the plain-view exception to apply, the discovery of the evidence must be “inadvertent.” See State v. Handran, 97 Or App 546, 550 , 777 P2d 981 (1989), overruled by State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126 , 834 P2d 488 (1992), abrogated by Horton v. California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 , 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990). 2016We do note, however, that defendant’s argument against the applicability of that exception is based on an outdated rule that, in order for the plain-view exception to apply, the discovery of the evidence must be “inadvertent.” See State v. Handran, 97 Or App 546, 550 , 777 P2d 981 (1989), overruled by State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126 , 834 P2d 488 (1992), abrogated by Horton v. California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 , 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990). | 1 | 4 |
Texas v. Browngreen2 sentences2022Compare Stock, 209 Or App at 13 , with State v. Currin, 258 Or App 715, 719 , 311 P3d 903 (2013) (applying the plain-view doctrine and explaining that, under Article I, section 9, probable cause requires that an officer subjectively believe that a crime has been com- mitted, and thus that a person or thing is subject to seizure, and that the belief be objectively reasonable in the circum- stances); see also Texas v. Brown, 460 US 730, 740-42 , 103 S Ct 1535 , 75 L Ed 2d 502 (1983) (equating the “immediately apparent” standard required for plain view with probable cause for Fourth Amendment pur 2022Compare Stock, 209 Or App at 13 , with State v. Currin, 258 Or App 715, 719 , 311 P3d 903 (2013) (applying the plain-view doctrine and explaining that, under Article I, section 9, probable cause requires that an officer subjectively believe that a crime has been com- mitted, and thus that a person or thing is subject to seizure, and that the belief be objectively reasonable in the circum- stances); see also Texas v. Brown, 460 US 730, 740-42 , 103 S Ct 1535 , 75 L Ed 2d 502 (1983) (equating the “immediately apparent” standard required for plain view with probable cause for Fourth Amendment pur | 1 | 3 |
State v. Stockgreen2 sentences2022Second, she argues that the plain-view doctrine did not justify sei- zure of the syringe because the incriminating character of the syringe was not “immediately apparent.” Regarding the second argument, the facts of this case are most analogous to State v. Stock, 209 Or App 7 , 146 P3d 393 (2006), where we concluded that, in the totality of the circumstances, the search of a folded bottle cap contain- ing a plastic bag was supported by probable cause. 2022Second, she argues that the plain-view doctrine did not justify sei- zure of the syringe because the incriminating character of the syringe was not “immediately apparent.” Regarding the second argument, the facts of this case are most analogous to State v. Stock, 209 Or App 7 , 146 P3d 393 (2006), where we concluded that, in the totality of the circumstances, the search of a folded bottle cap contain- ing a plastic bag was supported by probable cause. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sargentgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Carter , 200 Or.App. 262 , 268, 113 P.3d 969 (2005), aff'd , 342 Or. 39 , 147 P.3d 1151 (2006) (remanding to the trial court because "there remain[ed] issues of fact regarding whether the incriminating character of the evidence [was] 'immediately apparent' " *787 as is required by the plain-view exception (quoting State v. Sargent , 323 Or. 455 , 463 n. 5, 918 P.2d 819 (1996) )). 2018See State v. Carter , 200 Or.App. 262 , 268, 113 P.3d 969 (2005), aff'd , 342 Or. 39 , 147 P.3d 1151 (2006) (remanding to the trial court because "there remain[ed] issues of fact regarding whether the incriminating character of the evidence [was] 'immediately apparent' " *787 as is required by the plain-view exception (quoting State v. Sargent , 323 Or. 455 , 463 n. 5, 918 P.2d 819 (1996) )). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kruchekgreen2 sentences2009The nature of the container, however, must be such as to announce “that contraband is [its] sole content.” State v. Kruchek, 156 Or App 617, 622 , 969 P2d 386 (1998), aff'd by an equally divided court, 331 Or 664 , 20 P3d 180 (2001). 2009The nature of the container, however, must be such as to announce “that contraband is [its] sole content.” State v. Kruchek, 156 Or App 617, 622 , 969 P2d 386 (1998), aff'd by an equally divided court, 331 Or 664 , 20 P3d 180 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kruchekgreen2 sentences2009The nature of the container, however, must be such as to announce “that contraband is [its] sole content.” State v. Kruchek, 156 Or App 617, 622 , 969 P2d 386 (1998), aff'd by an equally divided court, 331 Or 664 , 20 P3d 180 (2001). 2009The nature of the container, however, must be such as to announce “that contraband is [its] sole content.” State v. Kruchek, 156 Or App 617, 622 , 969 P2d 386 (1998), aff'd by an equally divided court, 331 Or 664 , 20 P3d 180 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Nicholgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Paul Mayhew Norman, United States of America v. Ramon Florencio Arce, United States of America v. Robert Leonard Bryantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Olneygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Trupiano v. United Statesred | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Petersonred2 sentences2016We do note, however, that defendant’s argument against the applicability of that exception is based on an outdated rule that, in order for the plain-view exception to apply, the discovery of the evidence must be “inadvertent.” See State v. Handran, 97 Or App 546, 550 , 777 P2d 981 (1989), overruled by State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126 , 834 P2d 488 (1992), abrogated by Horton v. California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 , 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990). 2016We do note, however, that defendant’s argument against the applicability of that exception is based on an outdated rule that, in order for the plain-view exception to apply, the discovery of the evidence must be “inadvertent.” See State v. Handran, 97 Or App 546, 550 , 777 P2d 981 (1989), overruled by State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126 , 834 P2d 488 (1992), abrogated by Horton v. California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 , 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Handranred2 sentences2016We do note, however, that defendant’s argument against the applicability of that exception is based on an outdated rule that, in order for the plain-view exception to apply, the discovery of the evidence must be “inadvertent.” See State v. Handran, 97 Or App 546, 550 , 777 P2d 981 (1989), overruled by State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126 , 834 P2d 488 (1992), abrogated by Horton v. California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 , 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990). 2016We do note, however, that defendant’s argument against the applicability of that exception is based on an outdated rule that, in order for the plain-view exception to apply, the discovery of the evidence must be “inadvertent.” See State v. Handran, 97 Or App 546, 550 , 777 P2d 981 (1989), overruled by State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126 , 834 P2d 488 (1992), abrogated by Horton v. California, 496 US 128 , 110 S Ct 2301 , 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990). | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Kostagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bock (A169480)
green
2 sentences2023He fur- ther points out that, after the trial court’s ruling, we held in State v. Bock, 310 Or App 329, 340 , 485 P3d 931 (2021), that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to searches of digital devices, and therefore the evidence admitted under that theory should have been suppressed.4 The state responds that the command to search for communications between the primary subjects of investiga- tion at the time was sufficiently limited in subject matter, and that no temporal limitation was possible. 2023He fur- ther points out that, after the trial court’s ruling, we held in State v. Bock, 310 Or App 329, 340 , 485 P3d 931 (2021), that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to searches of digital devices, and therefore the evidence admitted under that theory should have been suppressed.4 The state responds that the command to search for communications between the primary subjects of investiga- tion at the time was sufficiently limited in subject matter, and that no temporal limitation was possible. | 4 | 2021–2023 |
State v. Wise-Welsh
green
2 sentences2026State v. Wise-Welsh, 318 Or App 146 , 147- 48, 506 P3d 454 , rev den, 370 Or 198 (2022). 2026State v. Wise-Welsh, 318 Or App 146 , 147- 48, 506 P3d 454 , rev den, 370 Or 198 (2022). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Gaskill
green
2 sentences2025We have expressly held the plain view doctrine inapplicable Cite as 340 Or App 459 (2025) 471 Next, we consider whether the warrant was suffi- ciently particular. 2025We have expressly held the plain view doctrine inapplicable Cite as 340 Or App 459 (2025) 471 Next, we consider whether the warrant was suffi- ciently particular. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Farrar
green
2 sentences2025In response, the state contends that the search command comports with a “longstanding application of the plain view doctrine to non-digital searches,” relying on State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 151 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990), for the propo- sition that a warrant is sufficiently particular, as a restate- ment of the plain view doctrine, if it permits a search for any other physical evidence of a particular crime. 2025In response, the state contends that the search command comports with a “longstanding application of the plain view doctrine to non-digital searches,” relying on State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 151 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990), for the propo- sition that a warrant is sufficiently particular, as a restate- ment of the plain view doctrine, if it permits a search for any other physical evidence of a particular crime. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Curry
green
2 sentences2025We have previously rejected the state’s argument that a search cate- gory authorizing a search for “[a]ny other evidence” of defen- dant’s alleged crimes was a permissible restatement of the plain view doctrine.3 Curry, 336 Or App at 88 . 2025That search category did not limit the officers’ authorization to search and seize only those items they could lawfully seize under the plain view doctrine, which consists of items an officer can seize “from a position where that officer is entitled to be and the incriminating character of the item to be seized is immediately apparent.” Id. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. McGlothin
green
2 sentences2025In response, the state contends that the search command comports with a “longstanding application of the plain view doctrine to non-digital searches,” relying on State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 151 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990), for the propo- sition that a warrant is sufficiently particular, as a restate- ment of the plain view doctrine, if it permits a search for any other physical evidence of a particular crime. 2025In response, the state contends that the search command comports with a “longstanding application of the plain view doctrine to non-digital searches,” relying on State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 151 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990), for the propo- sition that a warrant is sufficiently particular, as a restate- ment of the plain view doctrine, if it permits a search for any other physical evidence of a particular crime. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Serrano (A173250)
green
1 sentence2023Bock, like Mansor, emphasized the unique privacy issues presented in searches of digital devices and high- lighted the Supreme Court’s rationale for imposing addi- tional limitations: Cite as 324 Or App 453 (2023) 463 “The very nature of a digital device such as a cell phone renders it a ‘repository with a historically unprecedented capacity to collect and store a diverse and vast array of per- sonal information.’ [Mansor, 363 Or] at 208. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Oller
green
2 sentences2022Although we agree with defendant that syringes are not contraband categorically subject to seizure, State v. Oller, 277 Or App 529, 537 , 371 P3d 1268 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 803 (2017), we have consistently explained that normally benign objects may nonetheless be subject to seizure as evi- dence of a crime. 2022Although we agree with defendant that syringes are not contraband categorically subject to seizure, State v. Oller, 277 Or App 529, 537 , 371 P3d 1268 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 803 (2017), we have consistently explained that normally benign objects may nonetheless be subject to seizure as evi- dence of a crime. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Frischman
neutral
2 sentences2021This case ultimately presents the same problem that we encountered in State v. Frischman, 298 Or App 186, 188-89 , 445 P3d 946 , rev den, 365 Or 721 (2019), and it requires the same disposition. 2021This case ultimately presents the same problem that we encountered in State v. Frischman, 298 Or App 186, 188-89 , 445 P3d 946 , rev den, 365 Or 721 (2019), and it requires the same disposition. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Owens
green
2 sentences2013In State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 202-03 , 729 P2d 524 (1986), the Supreme Court stated, in the context of a search incident to arrest, that “[w]hen an officer has probable cause to believe that an object he has lawfully discovered is contraband and, therefore, that a crime is being committed in his presence, he has the right to seize it.” See also Texas v. Brown, 460 US 730, 740-42 , 103 S Ct 1535 , 75 L Ed 2d 502 (1983) (stating that, in the Fourth Amendment plain-view context, “immediately apparent” is equivalent to the probable cause standard). 2013In State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 202-03 , 729 P2d 524 (1986), the Supreme Court stated, in the context of a search incident to arrest, that “[w]hen an officer has probable cause to believe that an object he has lawfully discovered is contraband and, therefore, that a crime is being committed in his presence, he has the right to seize it.” See also Texas v. Brown, 460 US 730, 740-42 , 103 S Ct 1535 , 75 L Ed 2d 502 (1983) (stating that, in the Fourth Amendment plain-view context, “immediately apparent” is equivalent to the probable cause standard). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Garoutte
green
2 sentences2012State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126, 129-31 , 834 P2d 488 , rev dismissed, 315 Or 272 (1992) (the defendant did not have a privacy interest in stolen dolls that he had on display to the public and was offering for sale; thus their seizure was justified by the plain view exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Garoutte, 104 Or App 418, 421 , 801 P2d 881 (1990) (the defendant had no privacy rights in the use or occupancy of a stolen car he was driving once he was lawfully removed from the car). 2012State v. Peterson, 114 Or App 126, 129-31 , 834 P2d 488 , rev dismissed, 315 Or 272 (1992) (the defendant did not have a privacy interest in stolen dolls that he had on display to the public and was offering for sale; thus their seizure was justified by the plain view exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Garoutte, 104 Or App 418, 421 , 801 P2d 881 (1990) (the defendant had no privacy rights in the use or occupancy of a stolen car he was driving once he was lawfully removed from the car). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cardosa v. Morales
green
1 sentence1998Id. [6] See also United States v. Norman, 701 F.2d 295, 298 (4th Cir.), cert. den. 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 82 , 78 L.Ed.2d 92 (1983) (warrantless search of bales on ship was held lawful because under the plain view doctrine, the smell of marijuana revealed itself to the senses). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
California v. Harvier
green
2 sentences1998Id. [6] See also United States v. Norman, 701 F.2d 295, 298 (4th Cir.), cert. den. 464 U.S. 820 , 104 S.Ct. 82 , 78 L.Ed.2d 92 (1983) (warrantless search of bales on ship was held lawful because under the plain view doctrine, the smell of marijuana revealed itself to the senses). 1998Id. 6 See also United States v. Norman, 710 F2d 295, 298 (4th Cir), cert den 464 US 820 (1983) (warrantless search of bales on ship was held lawful because under the plain view doctrine, the smell of marijuana revealed itself to the senses). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Gary Aircraft Corp. v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Arkansas v. Sanders red | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Bridewell green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Slowikowski green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Bridewell green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Dixson green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Alexander green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Harris v. United States green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| State v. McGee neutral | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.