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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1979–1995 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bynongreen2 sentences1984(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 652 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ]; County of Fresno v. Superior Court, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 ; Shults v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 696, 699 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; People v. Bynon (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 7, 14 [ 303 P.2d 75 ].) With respect to other tests yet to be developed or fully accepted in the scientific community, we interpret the provisions of section 892 to be mandatory in requiring the trial court to order the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to any blood tests requested by a party upon a timely motion, and 1984(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 652 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ]; County of Fresno v. Superior Court, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 ; Shults v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 696, 699 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; People v. Bynon (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 7, 14 [ 303 P.2d 75 ].) With respect to other tests yet to be developed or fully accepted in the scientific community, we interpret the provisions of section 892 to be mandatory in requiring the trial court to order the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to any blood tests requested by a party upon a timely motion, and | 1 | 1 |
Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc.green2 sentences1984“It is well established that it is the responsibility of counsel to propose correct instructions and the court has no duty to modify erroneous instructions submitted to it.” (Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 821, 839 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 225 ].) While this instruction was not erroneous, it was certainly misleading. 1984“It is well established that it is the responsibility of counsel to propose correct instructions and the court has no duty to modify erroneous instructions submitted to it.” (Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 821, 839 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 225 ].) While this instruction was not erroneous, it was certainly misleading. | 1 | 1 |
Huntingdon v. Crowleygreen2 sentences1984(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 652 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ]; County of Fresno v. Superior Court, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 ; Shults v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 696, 699 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; People v. Bynon (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 7, 14 [ 303 P.2d 75 ].) With respect to other tests yet to be developed or fully accepted in the scientific community, we interpret the provisions of section 892 to be mandatory in requiring the trial court to order the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to any blood tests requested by a party upon a timely motion, and 1984(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 652 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ]; County of Fresno v. Superior Court, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 ; Shults v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 696, 699 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; People v. Bynon (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 7, 14 [ 303 P.2d 75 ].) With respect to other tests yet to be developed or fully accepted in the scientific community, we interpret the provisions of section 892 to be mandatory in requiring the trial court to order the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to any blood tests requested by a party upon a timely motion, and | 1 | 1 |
Shults v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1984(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 652 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ]; County of Fresno v. Superior Court, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 ; Shults v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 696, 699 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; People v. Bynon (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 7, 14 [ 303 P.2d 75 ].) With respect to other tests yet to be developed or fully accepted in the scientific community, we interpret the provisions of section 892 to be mandatory in requiring the trial court to order the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to any blood tests requested by a party upon a timely motion, and 1984(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 652 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ]; County of Fresno v. Superior Court, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 ; Shults v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 696, 699 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; People v. Bynon (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 7, 14 [ 303 P.2d 75 ].) With respect to other tests yet to be developed or fully accepted in the scientific community, we interpret the provisions of section 892 to be mandatory in requiring the trial court to order the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to any blood tests requested by a party upon a timely motion, and | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co.green2 sentences1981(Munoz v. Olin (1979) 24 Cal.3d 629, 636 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 727 , 596 P.2d 1143 ]; Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 583 P.2d 121 ]; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 496 P.2d 480 ].) Appellant argues that “the court erred in finding that the HLA test results were not entitled to substantial evidentiary weight by reason of inaccuracy.” Appellant, however, misquotes the court’s finding. 1981(Munoz v. Olin (1979) 24 Cal.3d 629, 636 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 727 , 596 P.2d 1143 ]; Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 583 P.2d 121 ]; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 496 P.2d 480 ].) Appellant argues that “the court erred in finding that the HLA test results were not entitled to substantial evidentiary weight by reason of inaccuracy.” Appellant, however, misquotes the court’s finding. | 1 | 1 |
Nestle v. City of Santa Monicagreen2 sentences1981(Munoz v. Olin (1979) 24 Cal.3d 629, 636 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 727 , 596 P.2d 1143 ]; Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 583 P.2d 121 ]; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 496 P.2d 480 ].) Appellant argues that “the court erred in finding that the HLA test results were not entitled to substantial evidentiary weight by reason of inaccuracy.” Appellant, however, misquotes the court’s finding. 1981(Munoz v. Olin (1979) 24 Cal.3d 629, 636 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 727 , 596 P.2d 1143 ]; Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 583 P.2d 121 ]; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 496 P.2d 480 ].) Appellant argues that “the court erred in finding that the HLA test results were not entitled to substantial evidentiary weight by reason of inaccuracy.” Appellant, however, misquotes the court’s finding. | 1 | 1 |
Munoz v. Olingreen2 sentences1981(Munoz v. Olin (1979) 24 Cal.3d 629, 636 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 727 , 596 P.2d 1143 ]; Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 583 P.2d 121 ]; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 496 P.2d 480 ].) Appellant argues that “the court erred in finding that the HLA test results were not entitled to substantial evidentiary weight by reason of inaccuracy.” Appellant, however, misquotes the court’s finding. 1981(Munoz v. Olin (1979) 24 Cal.3d 629, 636 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 727 , 596 P.2d 1143 ]; Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 583 P.2d 121 ]; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 496 P.2d 480 ].) Appellant argues that “the court erred in finding that the HLA test results were not entitled to substantial evidentiary weight by reason of inaccuracy.” Appellant, however, misquotes the court’s finding. | 1 | 1 |
Buckhantz v. R. G. Hamilton & Co.green2 sentences1981Hamilton & Co. (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 777, 779 [ 163 P.2d 756 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 245, p. 4238.) Thus the court found that the testimony of the mother was insufficient to warrant a finding of paternity, that the HLA test merely proved that biologically it was possible for the defendant to be the father and that proof of paternity was not sustained. 1981Hamilton & Co. (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 777, 779 [ 163 P.2d 756 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 245, p. 4238.) Thus the court found that the testimony of the mother was insufficient to warrant a finding of paternity, that the HLA test merely proved that biologically it was possible for the defendant to be the father and that proof of paternity was not sustained. | 1 | 1 |
Firlotte v. Jesseegreen2 sentences1979(People v. Jones, 42 Cal.2d 219, 222 [ 266 P.2d 38 ]; People v. Warner, 270 Cal.App.2d 900, 907-908 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 160 ]; Firlotte v. Jessee, 76 Cal.App.2d 207, 210 [ 172 P.2d 710 ].) *880 Apart from the possibility of exclusion of the HLA test by a specific statute and assuming its general acceptance in the scientific community as a reliable test for paternity, the results of the test are clearly probative and therefore relevant in an action to establish paternity. 1979(People v. Jones, 42 Cal.2d 219, 222 [ 266 P.2d 38 ]; People v. Warner, 270 Cal.App.2d 900, 907-908 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 160 ]; Firlotte v. Jessee, 76 Cal.App.2d 207, 210 [ 172 P.2d 710 ].) *880 Apart from the possibility of exclusion of the HLA test by a specific statute and assuming its general acceptance in the scientific community as a reliable test for paternity, the results of the test are clearly probative and therefore relevant in an action to establish paternity. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Modellgreen2 sentences1979(Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co., 149 Cal. 772, 776 [ 87 P. 622 ]; People v. Watson, 75 Cal.App.3d 384, 401 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 134 ]; People v. Modell, 143 Cal.App.2d 724, 730-731 [ 300 P.2d 204 ].) An objection must specify a reasonably definite statement of the ground or grounds so that the judge may properly pass on the objection and the adversary may have an opportunity to remedy, if possible, any deficiency. 1979(Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co., 149 Cal. 772, 776 [ 87 P. 622 ]; People v. Watson, 75 Cal.App.3d 384, 401 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 134 ]; People v. Modell, 143 Cal.App.2d 724, 730-731 [ 300 P.2d 204 ].) An objection must specify a reasonably definite statement of the ground or grounds so that the judge may properly pass on the objection and the adversary may have an opportunity to remedy, if possible, any deficiency. | 1 | 1 |
Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co.green2 sentences1979(Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co., 149 Cal. 772, 776 [ 87 P. 622 ]; People v. Watson, 75 Cal.App.3d 384, 401 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 134 ]; People v. Modell, 143 Cal.App.2d 724, 730-731 [ 300 P.2d 204 ].) An objection must specify a reasonably definite statement of the ground or grounds so that the judge may properly pass on the objection and the adversary may have an opportunity to remedy, if possible, any deficiency. 1979(Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co., 149 Cal. 772, 776 [ 87 P. 622 ]; People v. Watson, 75 Cal.App.3d 384, 401 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 134 ]; People v. Modell, 143 Cal.App.2d 724, 730-731 [ 300 P.2d 204 ].) An objection must specify a reasonably definite statement of the ground or grounds so that the judge may properly pass on the objection and the adversary may have an opportunity to remedy, if possible, any deficiency. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kellyyellow2 sentences1979L. 543 .) Such writings may be considered by courts in evaluating the reliability of new scientific techniques. {People v. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24, 35 .) Thus, had the issue been raised below, plaintiff could have adduced additional evidence on the issue of general acceptance and reliability of the HLA test to prove paternity as well as additional evidence pertaining to the qualifications of Dr. Terasaki 19 to render an opinion on that issue. 1979(People v. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24, 30 .) In the case at bench, however, defendant did not base his motion in limine on the ground that the HLA test had not attained general acceptance in the scientific world. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Palmergreen2 sentences1979(People v. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24, 32 ; People v. Palmer, 80 Cal.App.3d 239, 252 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 466 ].) Defendant, having withdrawn the issue of general acceptance from his motion in limine may not now assert that the ruling below may be sustained on the ground plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence upon it. 1979(People v. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24, 32 ; People v. Palmer, 80 Cal.App.3d 239, 252 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 466 ].) Defendant, having withdrawn the issue of general acceptance from his motion in limine may not now assert that the ruling below may be sustained on the ground plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence upon it. | 1 | 1 |
Marsango v. Automobile Club of Southern Californiagreen2 sentences1979Cal, 1 Cal.App.3d 688, 694 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 92 ].) Here, the question whether the reliability of the HLA test to prove paternity has attained general acceptance in the scientific community presents a mixed question of fact and law to be determined from the testimony of qualified experts in the field, by reference to legal and scientific publications and journals on the subject, and from relevant judicial decisions. 1979Cal, 1 Cal.App.3d 688, 694 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 92 ].) Here, the question whether the reliability of the HLA test to prove paternity has attained general acceptance in the scientific community presents a mixed question of fact and law to be determined from the testimony of qualified experts in the field, by reference to legal and scientific publications and journals on the subject, and from relevant judicial decisions. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1979(People v. Jones, 42 Cal.2d 219, 222 [ 266 P.2d 38 ]; People v. Warner, 270 Cal.App.2d 900, 907-908 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 160 ]; Firlotte v. Jessee, 76 Cal.App.2d 207, 210 [ 172 P.2d 710 ].) *880 Apart from the possibility of exclusion of the HLA test by a specific statute and assuming its general acceptance in the scientific community as a reliable test for paternity, the results of the test are clearly probative and therefore relevant in an action to establish paternity. 1979(People v. Jones, 42 Cal.2d 219, 222 [ 266 P.2d 38 ]; People v. Warner, 270 Cal.App.2d 900, 907-908 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 160 ]; Firlotte v. Jessee, 76 Cal.App.2d 207, 210 [ 172 P.2d 710 ].) *880 Apart from the possibility of exclusion of the HLA test by a specific statute and assuming its general acceptance in the scientific community as a reliable test for paternity, the results of the test are clearly probative and therefore relevant in an action to establish paternity. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences1979(Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co., 149 Cal. 772, 776 [ 87 P. 622 ]; People v. Watson, 75 Cal.App.3d 384, 401 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 134 ]; People v. Modell, 143 Cal.App.2d 724, 730-731 [ 300 P.2d 204 ].) An objection must specify a reasonably definite statement of the ground or grounds so that the judge may properly pass on the objection and the adversary may have an opportunity to remedy, if possible, any deficiency. 1979(Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co., 149 Cal. 772, 776 [ 87 P. 622 ]; People v. Watson, 75 Cal.App.3d 384, 401 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 134 ]; People v. Modell, 143 Cal.App.2d 724, 730-731 [ 300 P.2d 204 ].) An objection must specify a reasonably definite statement of the ground or grounds so that the judge may properly pass on the objection and the adversary may have an opportunity to remedy, if possible, any deficiency. | 1 | 1 |
Michael B. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1979(See Michael B. v. Superior Court (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1009-1010 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 586 ].) We construe Evidence Code section 893 to mean, and we hold, that the court has no discretion to deny an HLA test upon demand of any party or person at whose suggestion an original extended factor test has been ordered. 1979(See Michael B. v. Superior Court (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1009-1010 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 586 ].) We construe Evidence Code section 893 to mean, and we hold, that the court has no discretion to deny an HLA test upon demand of any party or person at whose suggestion an original extended factor test has been ordered. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Warnergreen2 sentences1979(People v. Jones, 42 Cal.2d 219, 222 [ 266 P.2d 38 ]; People v. Warner, 270 Cal.App.2d 900, 907-908 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 160 ]; Firlotte v. Jessee, 76 Cal.App.2d 207, 210 [ 172 P.2d 710 ].) *880 Apart from the possibility of exclusion of the HLA test by a specific statute and assuming its general acceptance in the scientific community as a reliable test for paternity, the results of the test are clearly probative and therefore relevant in an action to establish paternity. 1979(People v. Jones, 42 Cal.2d 219, 222 [ 266 P.2d 38 ]; People v. Warner, 270 Cal.App.2d 900, 907-908 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 160 ]; Firlotte v. Jessee, 76 Cal.App.2d 207, 210 [ 172 P.2d 710 ].) *880 Apart from the possibility of exclusion of the HLA test by a specific statute and assuming its general acceptance in the scientific community as a reliable test for paternity, the results of the test are clearly probative and therefore relevant in an action to establish paternity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dodd v. Henkel
green
2 sentences1984In 1979, the court in Cramer v. Morrison, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d 873 , held admissible the results of an HLA test to prove paternity, distinguishing the HLA test involved in that case from the tests involved in Dodd v. Henkel (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 604 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 780 ], decided a year earlier. 1984In 1979, the court in Cramer v. Morrison, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d 873 , held admissible the results of an HLA test to prove paternity, distinguishing the HLA test involved in that case from the tests involved in Dodd v. Henkel (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 604 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 780 ], decided a year earlier. | 3 | 1979–1984 |
Cramer v. Morrison
green
2 sentences1984In 1979, the court in Cramer v. Morrison, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d 873 , held admissible the results of an HLA test to prove paternity, distinguishing the HLA test involved in that case from the tests involved in Dodd v. Henkel (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 604 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 780 ], decided a year earlier. 1984In 1979, the court in Cramer v. Morrison, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d 873 , held admissible the results of an HLA test to prove paternity, distinguishing the HLA test involved in that case from the tests involved in Dodd v. Henkel (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 604 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 780 ], decided a year earlier. | 2 | 1979–1984 |
Jones v. Crawford
green
2 sentences1995On these findings, the court ruled that [Crawford] had rebutted the statutory presumption.” ( 552 So.2d at p. 927 , fn. omitted.) The Florida appellate court reversed: “In the instant case, [Crawford] failed to meet the burden of overcoming the presumption. [He] did not demonstrate that the HLA test results were erroneous, did not avail himself of the procedures for retesting . . . and did not submit evidence tending to prove that, for any reason (such as sterility or total lack of access), he could not have been the father. 1995On these findings, the court ruled that [Crawford] had rebutted the statutory presumption.” ( 552 So.2d at p. 927 , fn. omitted.) The Florida appellate court reversed: “In the instant case, [Crawford] failed to meet the burden of overcoming the presumption. [He] did not demonstrate that the HLA test results were erroneous, did not avail himself of the procedures for retesting . . . and did not submit evidence tending to prove that, for any reason (such as sterility or total lack of access), he could not have been the father. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
ALINDA v. v. ALFREDO V.
neutral
2 sentences1984Such was the case in Alinda V. v. Alfredo V. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 98 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 839 ], where the trial court found that the 98.95 percent probability of paternity from the HLA test was “inaccurate and not entitled to any evidentiary weight.” (Id., at p. 101.) Concluding that the trial court’s finding of fact was correct, the appellate court observed: The “evidence [of the 98.95 percent probability of paternity] was presented by the medical technologist from the university laboratory whose knowledge of the case was limited to the blood typing. 1984Such was the case in Alinda V. v. Alfredo V. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 98 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 839 ], where the trial court found that the 98.95 percent probability of paternity from the HLA test was “inaccurate and not entitled to any evidentiary weight.” (Id., at p. 101.) Concluding that the trial court’s finding of fact was correct, the appellate court observed: The “evidence [of the 98.95 percent probability of paternity] was presented by the medical technologist from the university laboratory whose knowledge of the case was limited to the blood typing. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
County of Fresno v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1984The Cramer court, concluding “that California law does not compel exclusion of the results of the HLA test to prove paternity,” (Cramer v. Morrison, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 883 ), however, interpreted the omission from section 895 to refer not to the white blood cell typing tests such as the HLA test, but only to the traditional Landsteiner series tests which were involved in Dodd (Id., at pp. 881-882.) Four months after Cramer was decided, the court in County of Fresno v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 133 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 660 ], dealt with the question of the trial court’s discretion 1984The Cramer court, concluding “that California law does not compel exclusion of the results of the HLA test to prove paternity,” (Cramer v. Morrison, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 883 ), however, interpreted the omission from section 895 to refer not to the white blood cell typing tests such as the HLA test, but only to the traditional Landsteiner series tests which were involved in Dodd (Id., at pp. 881-882.) Four months after Cramer was decided, the court in County of Fresno v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 133 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 660 ], dealt with the question of the trial court’s discretion | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.