salutary rule in North Carolina

44 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1891–2010 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Whittemoregreen nc · 1961 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1965–1989 2 sentences 1989“But this salutary rule, preventing a defendant who does not rely on time as a defense from using a discrepancy between the time named in the bill and the time shown by the evidence for the State, cannot be used to ensnare a defendant and thereby deprive him of an opportunity to adequately present his defense.” State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583, 592 , 122 S.E. 2d 396, 403 (1961). 1989“But this salutary rule, preventing a defendant who does not rely on time as a defense from using a discrepancy between the time named in the bill and the time shown by the evidence for the State, cannot be used to ensnare a defendant and thereby deprive him of an opportunity to adequately present his defense.” State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583, 592 , 122 S.E. 2d 396, 403 (1961).	4	4
Mullen v. Sawyergreen nc · 1971 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1975–2007 2 sentences 2007See also Mullen v. Sawyer, 277 N.C. 623, 633 , 178 S.E.2d 425, 431 (1971) (“It is a salutary rule of law that one who prevents the performance of a condition, or makes it impossible by his own act, will not be permitted to take advantage of the nonperformance.”) In this case, counsel for petitioner conceded that bureaucratic tangles might have hampered payment. 2007See also Mullen v. Sawyer, 277 N.C. 623, 633 , 178 S.E.2d 425, 431 (1971) (“It is a salutary rule of law that one who prevents the performance of a condition, or makes it impossible by his own act, will not be permitted to take advantage of the nonperformance.”) In this case, counsel for petitioner conceded that bureaucratic tangles might have hampered payment.	1	2
State v. . Williamsgreen nc · 1910 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1955–2004 2 sentences 2004The Court explained that “[t]his law was enacted to enforce a well-recognized and salutary principle, both of the moral law and of public policy, that he who is entrusted -with the business of others can not be allowed to make such business an object of pecuniary profit to himself.” Id. at 254 , 90 S.E.2d at 498 (quoting State v. Williams, 153 N.C. 595, 599 , 68 S.E. 900, 902 (1910)). 2004The Court explained that “[t]his law was enacted to enforce a well-recognized and salutary principle, both of the moral law and of public policy, that he who is entrusted -with the business of others can not be allowed to make such business an object of pecuniary profit to himself.” Id. at 254 , 90 S.E.2d at 498 (quoting State v. Williams, 153 N.C. 595, 599 , 68 S.E. 900, 902 (1910)).	1	2
Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Waughgreen me · 1963 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010All parts and clauses must be considered together that it may be seen if and how far one clause is explained, modified, limited, or controlled by the others.” Waugh, 188 A.2d at 891-92 (internal citations omitted); see also Tinker v. Continental Ins.	1	1
City of Raleigh v. Edwardsgreen nc · 1951 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Indeed, to permit JUMC to bring forth its claims in such a manner would subject Batten and our courts to “ ‘the unnecessary delay and expense of repeated fragmentary’ ” litigation, Hicks v. Koutro, 249 N.C. 61, 64 , 105 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1958) (quoting City of Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529 , 67 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1951)), and undermine the salutary principle of judicial economy upon which Rule 13(a) is premised. 2005Indeed, to permit JUMC to bring forth its claims in such a manner would subject Batten and our courts to “ ‘the unnecessary delay and expense of repeated fragmentary’ ” litigation, Hicks v. Koutro, 249 N.C. 61, 64 , 105 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1958) (quoting City of Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529 , 67 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1951)), and undermine the salutary principle of judicial economy upon which Rule 13(a) is premised.	1	1
Hicks v. Koutrogreen nc · 1958 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Indeed, to permit JUMC to bring forth its claims in such a manner would subject Batten and our courts to “ ‘the unnecessary delay and expense of repeated fragmentary’ ” litigation, Hicks v. Koutro, 249 N.C. 61, 64 , 105 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1958) (quoting City of Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529 , 67 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1951)), and undermine the salutary principle of judicial economy upon which Rule 13(a) is premised. 2005Indeed, to permit JUMC to bring forth its claims in such a manner would subject Batten and our courts to “ ‘the unnecessary delay and expense of repeated fragmentary’ ” litigation, Hicks v. Koutro, 249 N.C. 61, 64 , 105 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1958) (quoting City of Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529 , 67 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1951)), and undermine the salutary principle of judicial economy upon which Rule 13(a) is premised.	1	1
McNamara v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.green nced · 1971 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982	1	1
Fowler v. Gowinggreen ca2 · 1908 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1936–1936	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (59)

Case	Cited	Years
Moffitt v. . Maness neutral nc · 1889 2 sentences 1913In Moffitt v. Maness , 102 N.C. 457 , we are admonished that the salutary rule against the admissibility of parol testimony to vary the terms of a written instrument has, perhaps, been relaxed too much, the farthest limit having been reached, beyond which it is not safe to go. 1913In Moffit v. Maness, 102 N. C., 457 , we are admonished that the salutary rule against the admissibility of parol testimony to vary the terms of a written instrument has, perhaps, been relaxed too much, the farthest limit having been reached, beyond which it is not safe to go.	3	1891–1913
State v. . Dixon green nc · 1939 2 sentences 1949S. v. Dixon , 215 N.C. 161 , 1 S.E. (2) 521; Spitzer v. Comrs. , 188 N.C. 30 , 123 S.E. 636 ; Williamson v. Rabon , 177 N.C. 302 , 98 S.E. 830 ; Hill v. R. 1949S. v. Dixon, 215 N. C. 161 , 1 S. E. (2) 521; Spitzer v. Comrs., 188 N. C. 30 , 123 S. E. 636 ; Williamson v. Rabon, 177 N. C. 302 , 98 S. E. 830 ; Hill v. R.	2	1949–1949
Williamson v. . Rabon green nc · 1919 2 sentences 1949S. v. Dixon , 215 N.C. 161 , 1 S.E. (2) 521; Spitzer v. Comrs. , 188 N.C. 30 , 123 S.E. 636 ; Williamson v. Rabon , 177 N.C. 302 , 98 S.E. 830 ; Hill v. R. 1949S. v. Dixon, 215 N. C. 161 , 1 S. E. (2) 521; Spitzer v. Comrs., 188 N. C. 30 , 123 S. E. 636 ; Williamson v. Rabon, 177 N. C. 302 , 98 S. E. 830 ; Hill v. R.	2	1949–1949
Spitzer v. . Comrs. green nc · 1924 2 sentences 1949S. v. Dixon, 215 N. C. 161 , 1 S. E. (2) 521; Spitzer v. Comrs., 188 N. C. 30 , 123 S. E. 636 ; Williamson v. Rabon, 177 N. C. 302 , 98 S. E. 830 ; Hill v. R. 1949S. v. Dixon, 215 N. C. 161 , 1 S. E. (2) 521; Spitzer v. Comrs., 188 N. C. 30 , 123 S. E. 636 ; Williamson v. Rabon, 177 N. C. 302 , 98 S. E. 830 ; Hill v. R.	2	1949–1949
Williamson v. Rabon green ca8 · 1919 2 sentences 1949S. v. Dixon , 215 N.C. 161 , 1 S.E. (2) 521; Spitzer v. Comrs. , 188 N.C. 30 , 123 S.E. 636 ; Williamson v. Rabon , 177 N.C. 302 , 98 S.E. 830 ; Hill v. R. 1949S. v. Dixon, 215 N. C. 161 , 1 S. E. (2) 521; Spitzer v. Comrs., 188 N. C. 30 , 123 S. E. 636 ; Williamson v. Rabon, 177 N. C. 302 , 98 S. E. 830 ; Hill v. R.	2	1949–1949
Strider v. . Lewey neutral nc · 1918 2 sentences 1948Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 196 S. E., 333 ; Wheeler v. Bank. 209 N. C., 258 , 183 S. E., 269 ; Bean v. Detective Co., 206 N. C., 125 , 173 S. E., 5 ; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N. C., 448 , 97 S. E., 398 ; Lloyd v. R. 1948Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 196 S. E., 333 ; Wheeler v. Bank. 209 N. C., 258 , 183 S. E., 269 ; Bean v. Detective Co., 206 N. C., 125 , 173 S. E., 5 ; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N. C., 448 , 97 S. E., 398 ; Lloyd v. R.	2	1948–1948
Brown v. . Brown green nc · 1938 2 sentences 1948Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 196 S. E., 333 ; Wheeler v. Bank. 209 N. C., 258 , 183 S. E., 269 ; Bean v. Detective Co., 206 N. C., 125 , 173 S. E., 5 ; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N. C., 448 , 97 S. E., 398 ; Lloyd v. R. 1948Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 196 S. E., 333 ; Wheeler v. Bank. 209 N. C., 258 , 183 S. E., 269 ; Bean v. Detective Co., 206 N. C., 125 , 173 S. E., 5 ; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N. C., 448 , 97 S. E., 398 ; Lloyd v. R.	2	1948–1948
Wheeler v. Bank of Edenton neutral nc · 1936 2 sentences 1948Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 196 S. E., 333 ; Wheeler v. Bank. 209 N. C., 258 , 183 S. E., 269 ; Bean v. Detective Co., 206 N. C., 125 , 173 S. E., 5 ; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N. C., 448 , 97 S. E., 398 ; Lloyd v. R. 1948Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 196 S. E., 333 ; Wheeler v. Bank. 209 N. C., 258 , 183 S. E., 269 ; Bean v. Detective Co., 206 N. C., 125 , 173 S. E., 5 ; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N. C., 448 , 97 S. E., 398 ; Lloyd v. R.	2	1948–1948
Bean v. Home Detective Co. green nc · 1934 2 sentences 1948Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 196 S. E., 333 ; Wheeler v. Bank. 209 N. C., 258 , 183 S. E., 269 ; Bean v. Detective Co., 206 N. C., 125 , 173 S. E., 5 ; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N. C., 448 , 97 S. E., 398 ; Lloyd v. R. 1948Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 196 S. E., 333 ; Wheeler v. Bank. 209 N. C., 258 , 183 S. E., 269 ; Bean v. Detective Co., 206 N. C., 125 , 173 S. E., 5 ; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N. C., 448 , 97 S. E., 398 ; Lloyd v. R.	2	1948–1948
In Re Will of Hardee neutral nc · 1924 2 sentences 1937To the same effect is the holding in Ledford v. Lumber Co. , 183 N.C. 614 ; In re Hardee , 187 N.C. 381 ; Brown v. Tel. 1937To the same effect is the holding in Ledford v. Lumber Co., 183 N. C., 614 ; In re Hardee, 187 N. C., 381 ; Brown v. Tel.	2	1937–1937
Ledford v. Valley River Lumber Co. green · 1922 2 sentences 1937To the same effect is the holding in Ledford v. Lumber Co. , 183 N.C. 614 ; In re Hardee , 187 N.C. 381 ; Brown v. Tel. 1937To the same effect is the holding in Ledford v. Lumber Co., 183 N. C., 614 ; In re Hardee, 187 N. C., 381 ; Brown v. Tel.	2	1937–1937
Schas v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States neutral nc · 1915 2 sentences 1925If we could perceive tbis error to be harmless we would apply the salutary doctrine, so ably set forth in Brewer v. Ring, 177 N. C., 484; S. v. Smith, 164 N. C., 476 ; Schas v. Assurance Society, 170 N. C., 420, 424 ; and in Graham & Waterman on New Trials, 1235, as does plaintiff’s counsel. 1925In these cited cases, the same rule was invoked and the Court said that the jury could not be expected to determine which rule to follow. *Page 493 If we could perceive this error to be harmless we would apply the salutary doctrine, so ably set forth in Brewer v. Ring , 177 N.C. 484 ; S. v. Smith , 164 N.C. 476 ; Schas v. Assurance Society , 170 N.C. 420 , 424 ; and in Graham Waterman on New Trials, 1235, as does plaintiff's counsel.	2	1925–1925
Duran v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. neutral vt · 1891 2 sentences 1924Durand v. Insurance Co., 63 Vt., 437 ; Vance on Insurance, p. 593.” We find no error in the judgment of the court below and the same is Affirmed. 1907Bray v. Insurance Co., 139 N. C., 393 ; Durand v. Insurance Co., 63 Vt., 437 (25 Am.	2	1907–1924
Cobb v. Clegg. green nc · 1904 2 sentences 1913The Court sounds the alarm and warns us against the dangers ahead, which warning we should carefully heed, as we said in Cobb v. Clegg , supra. It is best to trust to the words of the writing, which the parties have chosen to protect and preserve the integrity of their treaty, than to rely on human memory for he exact reproduction of their words, for Judge Taylor said in Smith v. Williams , 5 N.C. 426 : "The writers on the law of evidence have accordingly, in arranging the degrees of proof, placed written evidence of every kind higher in the scale of probability than unwritten; and notwithstan 1913The Court sounds the alarm and warns us against the dangers ahead, which warning we should carefully heed, as we said in Cobb v. Clegg, supra. It is best to trust to the words of the writing, which the parties have chosen to protect and preserve the integrity of their treaty, than to rely on human memory for the exact reproduction of their words, for Judge Taylor said in Smith v. Williams, 5 N. C., 426 : “The writers On the law of evidence have accordingly, in arranging the degrees of proof, placed written evidence of every kind higher in the scale of probability than unwritten; and notwithsta	2	1913–1913
Smith v. . Williams green · 1810 2 sentences 1913The Court sounds the alarm and warns us against the dangers ahead, which warning we should carefully heed, as we said in Cobb v. Clegg , supra. It is best to trust to the words of the writing, which the parties have chosen to protect and preserve the integrity of their treaty, than to rely on human memory for he exact reproduction of their words, for Judge Taylor said in Smith v. Williams , 5 N.C. 426 : "The writers on the law of evidence have accordingly, in arranging the degrees of proof, placed written evidence of every kind higher in the scale of probability than unwritten; and notwithstan 1913The Court sounds the alarm and warns us against the dangers ahead, which warning we should carefully heed, as we said in Cobb v. Clegg, supra. It is best to trust to the words of the writing, which the parties have chosen to protect and preserve the integrity of their treaty, than to rely on human memory for the exact reproduction of their words, for Judge Taylor said in Smith v. Williams, 5 N. C., 426 : “The writers On the law of evidence have accordingly, in arranging the degrees of proof, placed written evidence of every kind higher in the scale of probability than unwritten; and notwithsta	2	1913–1913
Lexington Insulation Company v. Davidson County green nc · 1955 2 sentences 2004The Court explained that “[t]his law was enacted to enforce a well-recognized and salutary principle, both of the moral law and of public policy, that he who is entrusted -with the business of others can not be allowed to make such business an object of pecuniary profit to himself.” Id. at 254 , 90 S.E.2d at 498 (quoting State v. Williams, 153 N.C. 595, 599 , 68 S.E. 900, 902 (1910)). 2004The Court explained that “[t]his law was enacted to enforce a well-recognized and salutary principle, both of the moral law and of public policy, that he who is entrusted -with the business of others can not be allowed to make such business an object of pecuniary profit to himself.” Id. at 254 , 90 S.E.2d at 498 (quoting State v. Williams, 153 N.C. 595, 599 , 68 S.E. 900, 902 (1910)).	1	2004–2004
Jewell v. Price green nc · 1965 2 sentences 1984In many cases since this wrong turn was made, including Jewell v. Price, 264 N.C. 459 , 142 S.E.2d 1 (1965) and Shearin v. Lloyd, 246 N.C. 363 , 98 S.E.2d 508 (1957), followed by the majority, the salutary principle, universally approved, that wrongdoers are not to profit by their own wrongs, was ignored and defendants were given the benefit of statutes of limitation running against plaintiffs even though the defendants' negligence was secret, had caused no discernible injury, and the plaintiffs had absolutely no knowledge of it. 1984In many cases since this wrong turn was made, including Jewell v. Price, 264 N.C. 459 , 142 S.E.2d 1 (1965) and Shearin v. Lloyd, 246 N.C. 363 , 98 S.E.2d 508 (1957), followed by the majority, the salutary principle, universally approved, that wrongdoers are not to profit by their own wrongs, was ignored and defendants were given the benefit of statutes of limitation running against plaintiffs even though the defendants' negligence was secret, had caused no discernible injury, and the plaintiffs had absolutely no knowledge of it.	1	1984–1984
Shearin v. Lloyd red nc · 1957 2 sentences 1984In many cases since this wrong turn was made, including Jewell v. Price, 264 N.C. 459 , 142 S.E.2d 1 (1965) and Shearin v. Lloyd, 246 N.C. 363 , 98 S.E.2d 508 (1957), followed by the majority, the salutary principle, universally approved, that wrongdoers are not to profit by their own wrongs, was ignored and defendants were given the benefit of statutes of limitation running against plaintiffs even though the defendants' negligence was secret, had caused no discernible injury, and the plaintiffs had absolutely no knowledge of it. 1984In many cases since this wrong turn was made, including Jewell v. Price, 264 N.C. 459 , 142 S.E.2d 1 (1965) and Shearin v. Lloyd, 246 N.C. 363 , 98 S.E.2d 508 (1957), followed by the majority, the salutary principle, universally approved, that wrongdoers are not to profit by their own wrongs, was ignored and defendants were given the benefit of statutes of limitation running against plaintiffs even though the defendants' negligence was secret, had caused no discernible injury, and the plaintiffs had absolutely no knowledge of it.	1	1984–1984
Levinson v. Deupree green scotus · 1953 2 sentences 1982Our Eastern District Federal Court pointed out in McNamara v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 328 F. Supp. 1058, 1060-61 (E.D.N.C. 1971): The notes of the Advisory Committee on federal rules state that the amendment was intended to codify the salutary principle of Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U.S. 648 , 73 S.Ct. 914 , 97 L.Ed. 1319 (1953) and Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 40 , 325 F. 2d 613 (1963). 1982Our Eastern District Federal Court pointed out in McNamara v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 328 F. Supp. 1058, 1060-61 (E.D.N.C. 1971): The notes of the Advisory Committee on federal rules state that the amendment was intended to codify the salutary principle of Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U.S. 648 , 73 S.Ct. 914 , 97 L.Ed. 1319 (1953) and Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 40 , 325 F. 2d 613 (1963).	1	1982–1982
State v. Locklear neutral ncctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1982“Where time is not of the essence of the offense charged . . . a discrepancy between the date alleged in the indictment and the date shown by the State’s evidence is ordinarily not fatal. [Citations omitted.] ‘But this salutary rule, preventing a defendant who does not rely on time as a defense from using a discrepancy between the time named in the bill and the time shown by the evidence for the State, cannot be used to ensnare a defendant and thereby deprive him of an opportunity to adequately present his defense.’ State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583, 592 , 122 S.E. 2d 396, 403 (1961).” State v 1982App. 647, 653-54 , 236 S.E. 2d 376, 380 , discr. rev. denied, 293 N.C. 363 , 237 S.E. 2d 851 (1977).	1	1982–1982
Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs green cadc · 1963 2 sentences 1982Our Eastern District Federal Court pointed out in McNamara v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 328 F. Supp. 1058, 1060-61 (E.D.N.C. 1971): The notes of the Advisory Committee on federal rules state that the amendment was intended to codify the salutary principle of Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U.S. 648 , 73 S.Ct. 914 , 97 L.Ed. 1319 (1953) and Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 40 , 325 F. 2d 613 (1963). 1982It is, in cases of this sort, intended to insure against forfeiture and injustice —in short, to codify in broad terms the salutary principle of Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U.S. 648 (1953), and Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F. 2d 613 (D.C.	1	1982–1982
State v. Frazier neutral nc · 1977 1 sentence 1982App. 647, 653-54 , 236 S.E. 2d 376, 380 , discr. rev. denied, 293 N.C. 363 , 237 S.E. 2d 851 (1977).	1	1982–1982
State v. Smith neutral nc · 1977 1 sentence 1982App. 647, 653-54 , 236 S.E. 2d 376, 380 , discr. rev. denied, 293 N.C. 363 , 237 S.E. 2d 851 (1977).	1	1982–1982
Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs green cadc · 1963 1 sentence 1982Our Eastern District Federal Court pointed out in McNamara v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 328 F. Supp. 1058, 1060-61 (E.D.N.C. 1971): The notes of the Advisory Committee on federal rules state that the amendment was intended to codify the salutary principle of Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U.S. 648 , 73 S.Ct. 914 , 97 L.Ed. 1319 (1953) and Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 40 , 325 F. 2d 613 (1963).	1	1982–1982
Harwood v. Shoe. green · 1906	1	1971–1971
Morrison v. . Walker neutral nc · 1920	1	1971–1971
Commercial National Bank of Charlotte v. Charlotte Supply Co. green · 1946	1	1971–1971
Whitlock v. . Lumber Co. neutral nc · 1907	1	1971–1971
Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. green scotus · 1911	1	1970–1970
Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brownell green scotus · 1935	1	1970–1970
Colt v. . Kimball green nc · 1925	1	1962–1962
State v. Kimrey neutral nc · 1952	1	1957–1957
Lumberton Coach Co. v. Stone neutral nc · 1952	1	1953–1953
Casey v. Cavaroc green · 1878	1	1936–1936
Mitchell v. . Strickland neutral nc · 1934	1	1936–1936
Lockridge v. . Smith green nc · 1934	1	1936–1936
Bailey v. . Stokes neutral nc · 1935	1	1936–1936
Oliver v. . Hecht green nc · 1934	1	1936–1936
Dallas v. . Wagner neutral nc · 1933	1	1936–1936
Manufacturers' Oil & Grease Co. v. Averett green nc · 1926	1	1936–1936

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 90 (1840–2024) CA 80 (1902–2017) PA 66 (1851–2017) NJ 48 (1884–2025) IL 45 (1875–2009) NC 44 (1891–2010) AL 32 (1850–2016) FL 31 (1855–2025) MO 26 (1873–1987) KS 25 (1904–1999) TX 25 (1881–2010) WV 25 (1875–2020) WA 21 (1894–1989) MI 19 (1894–2019) OR 18 (1901–2023) CT 18 (1819–2014) SC 17 (1905–1973) CO 17 (1894–1991) OK 17 (1897–1960) KY 16 (1907–1977) MN 15 (1897–1974) VA 14 (1910–2017) MT 14 (1920–2022) MA 14 (1906–2006) GA 14 (1895–1980) OH 13 (1898–1992) NE 13 (1894–2017) IN 12 (1854–1957) AR 12 (1895–1997) IA 11 (1921–2017) MD 11 (1888–2024) ND 11 (1901–2007) AZ 10 (1919–1970) ME 10 (1913–2018) TN 9 (1919–2000) WI 9 (1883–2023) NV 7 (1910–2023) DE 6 (1910–2020) DC 6 (1910–1989) LA 6 (1892–1979) MS 5 (1916–1988) WY 5 (1891–1975) VT 5 (1829–2004) RI 5 (1924–2011) ID 4 (1894–2009) UT 4 (1893–1939) HI 4 (1923–1953) NM 3 (1943–1965) SD 3 (1917–1948) PR 2 (1944–1952) VI 2 (1991–1997)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check