44 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1866–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rosenfeld v. CITY PAPER COMPANYgreen2 sentences2017Once the promissee has done all there is for him to do under the contract and the promissor's obligation is confined to payment by installments as specified by the contract, the doctrine of anticipatory breach has no field of operation and will not intercede to rescue the promissee from the consequences of the absence of an acceleration clause. " 'While City Paper Company's "judicial economy" argument has its appeal, the right of the parties to the protection of the rule of law cannot be sacrificed on the altar of judicial efficiency.' " Rosenfeld , 527 So.2d at 705-06 (footnote omitted)." Mei 2013“While City Paper Company’s ‘judicial econom/ argument has its appeal, the right of the parties to the protection of the rule of law cannot be sacrificed on the altar of judicial efficiency.” Rosenfeld, 527 So.2d at 705-06 (footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Janicker v. George Washington Universitygreen2 sentences2008Co. v. National Presto Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 1109 , 1119 (7th Cir.1983)). `The fact that a defendant anticipates the contingency of litigation resulting from an accident or event does not automatically qualify an "in house" report as work product.' Sims, 511 So.2d at 158 (quoting Janicker v. George Washington Univ., 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C.1982)). `An evidentiary showing by the objecting party is not required until the parties are "at issue as to whether the document sought was, in fact, prepared in anticipation of litigation."' Ex parte State Farm Automobile Ins. 2008Co. v. National Presto Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 1109 , 1119 (7th Cir.1983)). ‘The fact that a defendant anticipates the contingency of litigation resulting from an accident or event does not automatically qualify an “in house” report as work product.’ Sims, 511 So.2d at 158 (quoting Janicker v. George Washington Univ., 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C.1982)). ‘An evidentiary showing by the objecting party is not required until the parties are “at issue as to whether the document sought was, in fact, prepared in anticipation of litigation.” ’ Ex parte State Farm Automobile Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Sims v. Knollwood Park Hosp.green2 sentences2008The protection of this exception extends in any event to ‘the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.’ Rule 26(b)(3). ‘Under Rule 26(b)(3), the party objecting to discovery bears the burden of establishing the elements of the work-product exception.’ Ex parte Garrick, 642 So.2d 951 (Ala.1994). ‘ “[T]he test should be whether in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prosp 2008Co. v. National Presto Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 1109 , 1119 (7th Cir.1983)). ‘The fact that a defendant anticipates the contingency of litigation resulting from an accident or event does not automatically qualify an “in house” report as work product.’ Sims, 511 So.2d at 158 (quoting Janicker v. George Washington Univ., 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C.1982)). ‘An evidentiary showing by the objecting party is not required until the parties are “at issue as to whether the document sought was, in fact, prepared in anticipation of litigation.” ’ Ex parte State Farm Automobile Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Tankersley v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Evid. 502(a)(1) advisory committee’s notes. ' Communications to the clergyman in furtherance of a crime or a fraud would not qualify as seeking spir itual advice and therefore would not fall within the protection of the privilege .” (Emphasis added.) See also Tankersley v. State, 724 So.2d 557, 560 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), quoting Advisory Committee’s Notes to Rule 505 (stating that “Rule 505 has explicitly broadened the scope of the privilege to include ‘all conferences where the clergyman is consulted in the professional capacity of spiritual advisor in the broadest sense’ ”). 2006Although Rule 505 does not contain a similar privilege covering communications with clergy that indicate an intention to commit a crime, the Advisory Committee’s Notes again draw a parallel with the attorney-client privilege: ‘Communications to the clergyman in furtherance of a crime or fraud would not qualify as seeking spiritual advice and therefore would not fall within the protection of the privilege.’ Therefore, even though the clergyman privilege of Rule 505 does not specifically list exceptions to the general rule, the Advisory Committee clearly intended that the scope of that privilege | 2 | 2 |
Binks Manufacturing Company v. National Presto Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2008Co. v. National Presto Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 1109 , 1119 (7th Cir.1983)). `The fact that a defendant anticipates the contingency of litigation resulting from an accident or event does not automatically qualify an "in house" report as work product.' Sims, 511 So.2d at 158 (quoting Janicker v. George Washington Univ., 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C.1982)). `An evidentiary showing by the objecting party is not required until the parties are "at issue as to whether the document sought was, in fact, prepared in anticipation of litigation."' Ex parte State Farm Automobile Ins. 2008Co. v. National Presto Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 1109 , 1119 (7th Cir.1983)). ‘The fact that a defendant anticipates the contingency of litigation resulting from an accident or event does not automatically qualify an “in house” report as work product.’ Sims, 511 So.2d at 158 (quoting Janicker v. George Washington Univ., 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C.1982)). ‘An evidentiary showing by the objecting party is not required until the parties are “at issue as to whether the document sought was, in fact, prepared in anticipation of litigation.” ’ Ex parte State Farm Automobile Ins. | 1 | 3 |
Wright v. Wynngreen1 sentence1998See Wright v. Wynn , 682 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Moniagreen2 sentences1989If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been “compelled” within the meaning of the Amendment.’ United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 [ 63 S.Ct. 409, 410-11 , 87 L.Ed. 376 ] (1943) (footnote omitted). 1989If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been “compelled” within the meaning of the Amendment.’ United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 [ 63 S.Ct. 409, 410-11 , 87 L.Ed. 376 ] (1943) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Avondale Land Co. v. Shookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tracy v. . Talmagegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Craft v. Russell
neutral
2 sentences1983As explained by this Court in Lightsey v. Stone , 255 Ala. 541 , 546 , 52 So.2d 376 , 381 (1951): "In order to constitute one a bona fide purchaser and entitle him to the protection of the rule, as against a prior equity or conveyance, it is essential: `* * * (1) *Page 1223 that he is the purchaser of the legal as distinguished from an equitable title; (2) that he purchased the same in good faith; (3) that he parted with value as a consideration therefor by paying money or other thing of value, assuming a liability or incurring an injury; (4) that he had no notice, and knew no fact sufficient 1952In the recent cases of Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 , and Lightsey v. Stone, 255 Ala. 541 , 52 So.2d 376 , citing Craft v. Russell, 67 Ala. 9 , and other authorities, it was said that in order to constitute one a bona fide purchaser without notice and entitle him to the protection of the rule as against a prior equity or conveyance, it is essential “ ‘ * * * (1) that he is the purchaser of the legal as distinguished from an equitable title; (2) that he purchased the same in good faith; (3)that he parted with value as a consideration therefor by paying money or | 4 | 1949–1983 |
Ex Parte Garrick
green
2 sentences2008The protection of this exception extends in any event to `the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.' Rule 26(b)(3). `Under Rule 26(b)(3), the party objecting to discovery bears the burden of establishing the elements of the work-product exception.' Ex parte Garrick, 642 So.2d 951 (Ala. 1994). `"[T]he test should be whether in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prosp 2008The protection of this exception extends in any event to ‘the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.’ Rule 26(b)(3). ‘Under Rule 26(b)(3), the party objecting to discovery bears the burden of establishing the elements of the work-product exception.’ Ex parte Garrick, 642 So.2d 951 (Ala.1994). ‘ “[T]he test should be whether in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prosp | 3 | 2000–2008 |
Lightsey v. Stone
green
2 sentences1983As explained by this Court in Lightsey v. Stone , 255 Ala. 541 , 546 , 52 So.2d 376 , 381 (1951): "In order to constitute one a bona fide purchaser and entitle him to the protection of the rule, as against a prior equity or conveyance, it is essential: `* * * (1) *Page 1223 that he is the purchaser of the legal as distinguished from an equitable title; (2) that he purchased the same in good faith; (3) that he parted with value as a consideration therefor by paying money or other thing of value, assuming a liability or incurring an injury; (4) that he had no notice, and knew no fact sufficient 1983As explained by this Court in Lightsey v. Stone , 255 Ala. 541 , 546 , 52 So.2d 376 , 381 (1951): "In order to constitute one a bona fide purchaser and entitle him to the protection of the rule, as against a prior equity or conveyance, it is essential: `* * * (1) *Page 1223 that he is the purchaser of the legal as distinguished from an equitable title; (2) that he purchased the same in good faith; (3) that he parted with value as a consideration therefor by paying money or other thing of value, assuming a liability or incurring an injury; (4) that he had no notice, and knew no fact sufficient | 3 | 1952–1983 |
Webb v. Elyton Land Co.
green
2 sentences1952In support of this proposition the appellant cites the following cases: Hooper v. Strahan, 71 Ala. 75 ; May v. Wilkinson, 76 Ala. 543 ; Tutwiler v. Montgomery, 73 Ala. 263 ; Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471 , 18 So. 178 . 1951Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471 , 18 So. 178 ; Sherrod v. Hollywood Holding Corp., 233 Ala. 557 , 173 So. 33 ; Gibson v. Gibson, 200 Ala. 591 , 76 So. 949 ; Holly v. Dinkins, 202 Ala. *547 477, 80 So. 861 ; Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 . | 3 | 1949–1952 |
Blackwood v. City of Hanceville
green
2 sentences2018The legislature has simultaneously declared, however, that an officer may do so only 'so long as he does not endanger life or property' and has further conditioned the exercise of that privilege by recognizing the officer's continuing 'duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all of the persons,' removing the protection of the privilege if the officer drives with 'reckless disregard for the safety of others .' " Blackwood v. City of Hanceville , 936 So.2d 495 , 505-07 (Ala. 2006) (emphasis added). 2018The legislature has simultaneously declared, however, that an officer may do so only 'so long as he does not endanger life or property' and has further conditioned the exercise of that privilege by recognizing the officer's continuing 'duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all of the persons,' removing the protection of the privilege if the officer drives with 'reckless disregard for the safety of others .' " Blackwood v. City of Hanceville , 936 So.2d 495 , 505-07 (Ala. 2006) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Phillips v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2018I, § 14, Ala. Const. 1901, which provides "[t]hat the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity." A State official sued in his official capacity is also entitled to the protection of State immunity from suit "when the action is, in effect, one against the state." Phillips v. Thomas , 555 So.2d 81 , 83 (Ala. 1989). 2018I, § 14, Ala. Const. 1901, which provides "[t]hat the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity." A State official sued in his official capacity is also entitled to the protection of State immunity from suit "when the action is, in effect, one against the state." Phillips v. Thomas , 555 So.2d 81 , 83 (Ala. 1989). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Kerr-M Corporation
green
2 sentences2006As the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed in Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp. , 580 F.2d 1311 , 1319 n. 14 (7th Cir.1978) (quoting R. 2006As the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed in Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 580 F.2d 1311 , 1319 n. 14 (7th Cir.1978)(quoting R. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Boyd v. United States
red
2 sentences1997Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 . 1997Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 . | 2 | 1974–1997 |
Ex Parte Whisenant
green
2 sentences1989The very inclusion of this fourth requisite in Rule 11(A), as an additional right to be accorded children within the protection of that rule, precludes any rational basis for distinguishing the treatment of this fourth warning from that accorded the first three.” Whisenant, 466 So.2d at 1007 . 1989The very inclusion of this fourth requisite in Rule 11(A), as an additional right to be accorded children within the protection of that rule, precludes any rational basis for distinguishing the treatment of this fourth warning from that accorded the first three." Whisenant, 466 So.2d at 1007 . | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Larkins v. Howard
green
2 sentences1952In the recent cases of Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 , and Lightsey v. Stone, 255 Ala. 541 , 52 So.2d 376 , citing Craft v. Russell, 67 Ala. 9 , and other authorities, it was said that in order to constitute one a bona fide purchaser without notice and entitle him to the protection of the rule as against a prior equity or conveyance, it is essential “ ‘ * * * (1) that he is the purchaser of the legal as distinguished from an equitable title; (2) that he purchased the same in good faith; (3)that he parted with value as a consideration therefor by paying money or 1952In the recent cases of Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 , and Lightsey v. Stone, 255 Ala. 541 , 52 So.2d 376 , citing Craft v. Russell, 67 Ala. 9 , and other authorities, it was said that in order to constitute one a bona fide purchaser without notice and entitle him to the protection of the rule as against a prior equity or conveyance, it is essential “ ‘ * * * (1) that he is the purchaser of the legal as distinguished from an equitable title; (2) that he purchased the same in good faith; (3)that he parted with value as a consideration therefor by paying money or | 2 | 1951–1952 |
Sherrod v. Hollywood Holding Corporation
green
2 sentences1951Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471 , 18 So. 178 ; Sherrod v. Hollywood Holding Corp., 233 Ala. 557 , 173 So. 33 ; Gibson v. Gibson, 200 Ala. 591 , 76 So. 949 ; Holly v. Dinkins, 202 Ala. *547 477, 80 So. 861 ; Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 . 1951Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471 , 18 So. 178 ; Sherrod v. Hollywood Holding Corp., 233 Ala. 557 , 173 So. 33 ; Gibson v. Gibson, 200 Ala. 591 , 76 So. 949 ; Holly v. Dinkins, 202 Ala. *547 477, 80 So. 861 ; Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 . | 2 | 1949–1951 |
Womack v. Myrick Lumbert Co.
green
2 sentences1951Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471 , 18 So. 178 ; Sherrod v. Hollywood Holding Corp., 233 Ala. 557 , 173 So. 33 ; Gibson v. Gibson, 200 Ala. 591 , 76 So. 949 ; Holly v. Dinkins, 202 Ala. *547 477, 80 So. 861 ; Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 . 1951Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471 , 18 So. 178 ; Sherrod v. Hollywood Holding Corp., 233 Ala. 557 , 173 So. 33 ; Gibson v. Gibson, 200 Ala. 591 , 76 So. 949 ; Holly v. Dinkins, 202 Ala. *547 477, 80 So. 861 ; Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 . | 2 | 1949–1951 |
Holly v. Dinkins
green
2 sentences1951Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471 , 18 So. 178 ; Sherrod v. Hollywood Holding Corp., 233 Ala. 557 , 173 So. 33 ; Gibson v. Gibson, 200 Ala. 591 , 76 So. 949 ; Holly v. Dinkins, 202 Ala. *547 477, 80 So. 861 ; Larkins v. Howard, 252 Ala. 9 , 39 So.2d 224 , 7 A.L.R.2d 541 . 1949Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471, 482 , 18 So. 178 , 180; Sherrod v. Hollywood Holding Corp., 233 Ala. 557 , 173 So. 33 ; Gibson v. Gibson, 200 Ala. 591 , 76 So. 949 ; Holly v. Dinkins, 202 Ala. 477 (2), 80 So. 861 ; Starr Piano Co. v. Baker, 8 Ala.App. 449 , 62 So. 549 ; Myers v. Van Buskirk, 96 Fla. 704 , 119 So. 123 . | 2 | 1949–1951 |
Loventhal v. Home Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1923The court held: “The contract as to the purchase of the land in question is within the protection of the rule announced in the case of Loventhal v. Ins. *67 Co., 112 Ala. 108 , 20 South. 419 , 33 L. 1910The majority of the court are of the opinion that the contract as to'the purchase of the land in question is within the protection of the rule announced in the case of Loventhal v. Insurance Co., 112 Ala. 108 , 20 South. 419 , 33 L. | 2 | 1910–1923 |
Meigs v. Estate of Mobley
green
1 sentence2017Once the promissee has done all there is for him to do under the contract and the promissor's obligation is confined to payment by installments as specified by the contract, the doctrine of anticipatory breach has no field of operation and will not intercede to rescue the promissee from the consequences of the absence of an acceleration clause. " 'While City Paper Company's "judicial economy" argument has its appeal, the right of the parties to the protection of the rule of law cannot be sacrificed on the altar of judicial efficiency.' " Rosenfeld , 527 So.2d at 705-06 (footnote omitted)." Mei | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ex Parte McLendon
green
1 sentence2007Moreover, her argument that the application of the Act had the effect of depriving her the protection of the standard set out in Ex parte McLendon , 455 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1984), is meritless because the trial court did not modify its previous custody judgment. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Fields v. Jantec, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001It cites Fields v. Jantec, Inc ., 317 Or. 432 , 857 P.2d 95 (1993), for the proposition that a former complying employer should be offered the protection of the immunity clause of the workers' compensation statute because of the overall nature of the statute and its intent. 2001It cites Fields v. Jantec, Inc ., 317 Or. 432 , 857 P.2d 95 (1993), for the proposition that a former complying employer should be offered the protection of the immunity clause of the workers' compensation statute because of the overall nature of the statute and its intent. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Williamson v. Realty Champion
green
2 sentences1995Williamson v. Realty Champion , 551 So.2d 1000 (Ala. 1989). 1995Williamson v. Realty Champion, 551 So.2d 1000 (Ala.1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.
green
2 sentences1992It was further extended to civil litigants in Edmondson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc. , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2077 , 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991). 1992It was further extended to civil litigants in Edmondson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc. , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2077 , 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Powers v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1992The protection of this doctrine was extended to non-minority defendants by the United States Supreme Court in Powers v. Ohio , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). 1992The protection of this doctrine was extended to non-minority defendants by the United States Supreme Court in Powers v. Ohio , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Adamson v. Noble
neutral
1 sentence1987Adamson v. Noble, 137 Ala. 668 , 35 So. 139 (1903); Kemp’s Wrecker Service v. Grassland Sod Co., 404 So.2d 348 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Kemp's Wrecker Service v. Grassland Sod Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1987Adamson v. Noble, 137 Ala. 668 , 35 So. 139 (1903); Kemp’s Wrecker Service v. Grassland Sod Co., 404 So.2d 348 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. Culberson green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Murphree v. Henson
green
2 sentences1983As explained by this Court in Lightsey v. Stone , 255 Ala. 541 , 546 , 52 So.2d 376 , 381 (1951): "In order to constitute one a bona fide purchaser and entitle him to the protection of the rule, as against a prior equity or conveyance, it is essential: `* * * (1) *Page 1223 that he is the purchaser of the legal as distinguished from an equitable title; (2) that he purchased the same in good faith; (3) that he parted with value as a consideration therefor by paying money or other thing of value, assuming a liability or incurring an injury; (4) that he had no notice, and knew no fact sufficient 1983As explained by this Court in Lightsey v. Stone , 255 Ala. 541 , 546 , 52 So.2d 376 , 381 (1951): "In order to constitute one a bona fide purchaser and entitle him to the protection of the rule, as against a prior equity or conveyance, it is essential: `* * * (1) *Page 1223 that he is the purchaser of the legal as distinguished from an equitable title; (2) that he purchased the same in good faith; (3) that he parted with value as a consideration therefor by paying money or other thing of value, assuming a liability or incurring an injury; (4) that he had no notice, and knew no fact sufficient | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Robins green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Abbott v. Alabama Power Co. neutral | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Myhand v. State green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Kaiser v. Luizza neutral | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Stafford v. Nelson Bros. neutral | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Hooper v. Strahan green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Tutwiler v. Montgomery green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| May v. Wilkinson green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Jackson v. Stephens green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Myers v. Van Buskirk green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Starr Piano Co. v. Baker green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Bell v. Seals Piano & Organ Co. neutral | 1 | 1928–1928 |
| Collins v. State neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| English v. Reed green | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise green | 1 | 1920–1920 |
| Sullivan v. Boston & Albany Railroad green | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.