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.
45 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gaskin v. Stategreen2 sentences1995In creating the rule set forth in Gaskin we “disclaim[ed] any intent to adopt the Jeneks decision”, Gaskin, 353 S.W.2d at 469 ; however, we later acknowledged that the Gaskin rule “parallels the Jeneks rule”, Sewell v. State, 367 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1963) (op. on reh’g). 1995In creating the rule set forth in Gaskin we “disclaim[ed] any intent to adopt the Jeneks decision”, Gaskin, 353 S.W.2d at 469 ; however, we later acknowledged that the Gaskin rule “parallels the Jeneks rule”, Sewell v. State, 367 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1963) (op. on reh’g). | 11 | 21 |
Cullen v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Cf. Cullen v. State, 719 S.W.2d 195, 198-99 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (holding that tape-recorded interview between prosecutor and prospective witness is analogous to prosecutor’s notes of interview with prospective witness and does not constitute a statement within meaning of Gaskin rule). 1996The Gaskin rule provides that when a State’s witness has made a report or has given a statement prior to testifying, the defendant, after a timely request, is entitled to inspect and use such prior available report or statement for cross-examination and impeachment purposes, even though the witness may not have used the instrument to refresh his memory. 2 Cullen v. State, 719 S.W.2d 195, 196 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). | 8 | 10 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gas-kin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). 1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gaskin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). | 2 | 4 |
Zanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gas-kin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). 1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gaskin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). | 2 | 4 |
Enos v. Stategreen2 sentences1999“Rule 614(a) codifies and expands the Gaskin rule.” Enos v. State, 889 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). 1999“Rule 614(a) codifies and expands the Gaskin rule.” Enos v. State, 889 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). | 2 | 3 |
Washington v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See also Washington v. State, 856 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (applying the Gaskin rule to defense witnesses). 5 If a party invoked the Gaskin rule, it was error for the trial court not to require production of the statement or report. 1995See also Washington v. State, 856 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (applying the Gaskin rule to defense witnesses). 5 If a party invoked the Gaskin rule, it was error for the trial court not to require production of the statement or report. | 2 | 3 |
Campos v. Stategreen2 sentences1995These reports were state ments under Rule 614. 11 See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers’ offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer’s offense report was “statement” subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state’s witness has “made a report or given a statement”); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987) (inve 1995These reports were statements *804 under Rule 614. [11] See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers' offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer's offense report was "statement" subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state's witness has "made a report or given a statement"); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987 | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Williams v. State, 542 S.W.2d 131, 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). 1995Williams v. State, 542 S.W.2d 131, 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). | 2 | 2 |
Darrington v. Stategreen2 sentences1995These reports were state ments under Rule 614. 11 See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers’ offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer’s offense report was “statement” subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state’s witness has “made a report or given a statement”); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987) (inve 1995These reports were statements *804 under Rule 614. [11] See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers' offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer's offense report was "statement" subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state's witness has "made a report or given a statement"); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987 | 2 | 2 |
Mendoza v. Stategreen2 sentences1986Gaskin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 7 , 353 S.W.2d 467 (1962); Mendoza v. State, 552 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). 1986Mendoza, supra, at 448 . | 1 | 4 |
Artell v. Stategreen2 sentences1969Under these circumstances I feel the appellant was entitled to the report and I would not hesitate to overrule Artell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 944 , limiting the so-called “Gaskin rule” ( 172 Tex.Cr.R. 7 , 353 S.W.2d 467 ) to a previous statement made by the witness testifying for the State. 1969Under these circumstances I feel the appellant was entitled to the report and I would not hesitate to overrule Artell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 944 , limiting the so-called "Gaskin rule" ( 172 Tex.Cr.R. 7 , 353 S.W.2d 467 ) to a previous statement made by the witness testifying for the State. | 1 | 3 |
Rose v. Stategreen2 sentences1972Two basic rules have been followed by this Court regarding prior statements or notes of a witness: (1) the “use before the jury” rule, see Rose v. State, 427 S.W.2d 609 , and (2) the so-called Gaskin rule, Gaskin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 7 , 353 S. W.2d 467 . 1972Two basic rules have been followed by this Court regarding prior statements or notes of a witness: (1) the “use before the jury” rule, see Rose v. State, 427 S.W.2d 609 , and (2) the so-called Gaskin rule, Gaskin v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 7 , 353 S. W.2d 467 . | 1 | 3 |
Lowrance v. Hortongreen2 sentences2008Evid. 615. 3: See Enos v. State , 909 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (referring to Gaskin rule), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted , 959 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. 2008E VID. 615. 3 … See Enos v. State, 909 S.W .2d 293, 295 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (referring to Gaskin rule), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted, 959 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
Sewell v. Stategreen2 sentences1995In creating the rule set forth in Gaskin we “disclaim[ed] any intent to adopt the Jeneks decision”, Gaskin, 353 S.W.2d at 469 ; however, we later acknowledged that the Gaskin rule “parallels the Jeneks rule”, Sewell v. State, 367 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1963) (op. on reh’g). 1995In creating the rule set forth in Gaskin we “disclaim[ed] any intent to adopt the Jeneks decision”, Gaskin, 353 S.W.2d at 469 ; however, we later acknowledged that the Gaskin rule “parallels the Jeneks rule”, Sewell v. State, 367 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1963) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 2 |
Pinson v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Pinson v. State, 598 S.W.2d 299, 300-01 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Hoffman v. State, 514 S.W.2d 248 , 253 n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). 1995See, e.g., Pinson v. State, 598 S.W.2d 299, 300-01 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Hoffman v. State, 514 S.W.2d 248 , 253 n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). | 1 | 2 |
Hart v. Stategreen2 sentences1983See Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). 1983See Hart v. State, 447 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Smith v. State, 65 S.W.3d 332, 341 (Tex. App. - Waco, 2001, no pet.) (“Rule 615 codifies and expands the Gaskin rule.”). 2015See Smith v. State, 65 S.W.3d 332, 341 (Tex. App. - Waco, 2001, no pet.) (“Rule 615 codifies and expands the Gaskin rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
Enos v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Evid. 615. 3: See Enos v. State , 909 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (referring to Gaskin rule), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted , 959 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Newsome v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Newsome v. State , 829 S.W.2d 260, 264 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no pet.) (holding, under Gaskin rule, that to preserve error, defendant must make effort to incorporate notes into appellate record). | 1 | 1 |
Brandley v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Washington, 856 S.W.2d at 189 ; Cullen, 719 S.W.2d at 197-98 ; Brandley v. State, 691 S.W.2d 699, 713 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 817 , 111 S.Ct. 61 , 112 L.Ed.2d 35 (1990). 1995See, e.g., Washington, 856 S.W.2d at 189 ; Cullen, 719 S.W.2d at 197-98 ; Brandley v. State, 691 S.W.2d 699, 713 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 817 , 111 S.Ct. 61 , 112 L.Ed.2d 35 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wilton A. Welch, Jr., and Wilton A. Welch, IIIgreen2 sentences1995These reports were state ments under Rule 614. 11 See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers’ offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer’s offense report was “statement” subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state’s witness has “made a report or given a statement”); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987) (inve 1995These reports were statements *804 under Rule 614. [11] See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers' offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer's offense report was "statement" subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state's witness has "made a report or given a statement"); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987 | 1 | 1 |
| James Milton Lewis v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Garrisongreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gas-kin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). 1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gaskin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
Livingston v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gas-kin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). 1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gaskin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Court of Appealgreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gas-kin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). 1995See, e.g., Zanders v. State, 480 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951 , 95 S.Ct. 1685 , 44 L.Ed.2d 106 (1975) (where defendant denied opportunity to make statements under Gaskin rule available for appellate record so harm can be determined, harm is presumed); White v. State, 496 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
Vlasak v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1995These reports were state ments under Rule 614. 11 See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers’ offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer’s offense report was “statement” subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state’s witness has “made a report or given a statement”); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987) (inve 1995These reports were statements *804 under Rule 614. [11] See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers' offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer's offense report was "statement" subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state's witness has "made a report or given a statement"); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987 | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. McManusgreen2 sentences1995These reports were state ments under Rule 614. 11 See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers’ offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer’s offense report was “statement” subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state’s witness has “made a report or given a statement”); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987) (inve 1995These reports were statements *804 under Rule 614. [11] See, e.g., Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) (police officers' offense reports are discoverable statements under Gaskin); Darrington v. State, 493 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer's offense report was "statement" subject to Gaskin rule); 22 TEX.JUR.3d Criminal Law § 2446 (1982) (describing Gaskin Rule as applicable where state's witness has "made a report or given a statement"); see also United States v. Welch, 810 F.2d 485, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 955 , 108 S.Ct. 350 , 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987 | 1 | 1 |
| Menke v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bizzarri v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sheldon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Henley v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Capuchino v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Artell v. Texas
green
2 sentences2009App.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 951 (1963). 20 Neither the Gaskin rule nor its codification as rule 615 is a rule of admissibility. 32 It merely provides for access to a witness’s statements to aid in cross examining that witness. 33 Appellant concedes that the State provided Officer Williams’s report to him through discovery. 2009App.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 951 (1963). 20 Neither the Gaskin rule nor its codification as rule 615 is a rule of admissibility. 32 It merely provides for access to a witness’s statements to aid in cross examining that witness. 33 Appellant concedes that the State provided Officer Williams’s report to him through discovery. | 2 | 1985–2009 |
Martinez v. State
green
2 sentences1971In the case at bar appellant was entitled to the statement and offense reports under the so-called “Gaskin rule,” Martinez v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 186 , 354 S.W.2d 936 ; Pruitt v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 187 , 355 S.W.2d 528 ; Hughes v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 441 , 358 S.W.2d 386 , and asked for less than he was entitled to in only requesting that the trial judge make an in-camera inspection. 1971In the case at bar appellant was entitled to the statement and offense reports under the so-called “Gaskin rule,” Martinez v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 186 , 354 S.W.2d 936 ; Pruitt v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 187 , 355 S.W.2d 528 ; Hughes v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 441 , 358 S.W.2d 386 , and asked for less than he was entitled to in only requesting that the trial judge make an in-camera inspection. | 2 | 1971–1973 |
Hoffman v. State
green
2 sentences1995See, e.g., Pinson v. State, 598 S.W.2d 299, 300-01 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Hoffman v. State, 514 S.W.2d 248 , 253 n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). 1995See, e.g., Pinson v. State, 598 S.W.2d 299, 300-01 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Hoffman v. State, 514 S.W.2d 248 , 253 n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Campos v. State, 468 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Null v. City of Lansing green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
City of South Euclid v. Richardson
green
2 sentences1995See, e.g., Washington, 856 S.W.2d at 189 ; Cullen, 719 S.W.2d at 197-98 ; Brandley v. State, 691 S.W.2d 699, 713 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 817 , 111 S.Ct. 61 , 112 L.Ed.2d 35 (1990). 1995See, e.g., Washington, 856 S.W.2d at 189 ; Cullen, 719 S.W.2d at 197-98 ; Brandley v. State, 691 S.W.2d 699, 713 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 817 , 111 S.Ct. 61 , 112 L.Ed.2d 35 (1990). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Hillview Estates, Ltd. v. Mo-Con Ventures, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Moore v. State neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Buffington v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Stone v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Morton Salt Co. v. United States green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Payne v. State green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Howard v. Texas green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Hughes v. State neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Pruitt v. State neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Jackson v. Denno green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.