Sentence,ID
we overrule this holding based upon our conclusion that review by the court of appeals under section 22-63-117(11) is predicated upon a final order of the school board resulting from proceedings conducted under section 22-63-117.,50
"and as a creature of state law, bbghad may exercise a portion of the state's police power.",51
"ecause we find such an approach contradicts the logical underpinning of arbuckle, we decline to follow rosaia.",52
the majority now overrules modesto insofar as it holds that failure to instruct upon a lesser included offense is prejudicial per se.,53
we affirm without additional comment the trial court's rulings on the propriety of notice and adjudication regarding graves' status as an hfo.,54
##note: brock was reversed not overruled.,55
" """"phoenix"""" presumably refers to phoenix v. pennsylvania board of probation and parole (pa. cmwlth., no. 1243 c.d. 2017, filed april 5, 2018), 2018 wl 1630602.",56
"because the rule announced in downs was in effect for only about a year, petitioner contends we should overrule that case as having been wrongly decided.",57
"to the extent that the holding ingraves v. commonwealth, 21 va. app. 161, 462 s.e.2d 902 (1995), aff'd on reh'g en banc, 22 va. app. 262, 468 s.e.2d 710 (1996), is in conflict with our decision here, we overrule that holding.",58
"the progressive concrete court contrasted the language of section 2673.1, subdivision (g), which deals with claims for unpaid wages in the garment manufacturing industry and adopts the same appeal procedures as section 98.2. section 2673.1 used different language regarding an appeal bond requirement, providing in relevant part that """"[a]s a condition precedent to filing an appeal, the contractor or the guarantor, whichever appeals, shall post a bond with the commissioner in an amount equal to one and one-half times the amount of the award.""""",59
"as the court explained, the state has the """" 'duty . . . to protect the people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right of protection only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust.'",60
2011) (quotation omitted).,61
"to the extent that wright suggests or holds to the contrary, it is hereby overruled.",62
"be that as it may, to the extent that our present opinion is inconsistent with ryles and heath, the latter are hereby overruled.",63
"to the extent the result in any of these cases may have been correct under the law as set forth in today's opinion, that result is irrelevant to the question before us.",64
"this case bears no resemblance to cordis,   where """"academic norms gave rise to an expectation that disclosures will remain confidential.""""",65
"we now affirm the district court and overrule acorn, but only to the extent it is inconsistent with our en banc decision in this case.",66
"united states v. lewis, 467 f. app'x 298, 299 (5th cir. 2012) (unpublished).",67
"we conclude that we are required to hold that the specific offense designated as the object of the conspiracy in a  371 indictment does constitute an element of the offense, and we therefore overrule our opinion holding to the contrary, united states v. alerta, 96 f.3d 1230, 1239 (9th cir. 1996), overruled on other grounds by united states v. nordby",68
we rejected the application of the collateral order doctrine set forth in cohen v. beneficial industrial loan corp.,69
"2. discussion. ordinarily, a guilty plea """"by its terms waives all nonjurisdictional defects.""""",70
iv. referencing prior lawsuits.,71
appellant now appeals from his two convictions for the felony offense of    aggravated assault against a public servant and his conviction for the felony offense of aggravated assault against a family or household member and the resulting concurrent sentences of seventy years for each conviction.,72
"youngkin v. hines, 546 s.w.3d 675, 680 (tex. 2018).",73
"crim. app. sept. 25, 2012), perm. app. denied (tenn.",74
the issue of preservation of a challenge to a jury instruction has developed over time in this commonwealth.,75
"on appeal, mr. young asserts the district court erred by determining the minor victim, fh, was competent to testify.",76
any expressions in the earlier cases to the contrary are overruled.,77
[citation omitted].,78
"see  anderson v. state, 18 so.3d 501, 520 (fla.2009) (rejecting a claim of cumulative error when appellant's claims, addressed individually, did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel or that appellant's constitutional rights were violated) (citing israel v. state, 985 so.2d 510, 520 (fla.2008)); suggs v. state, 923 so.2d 419, 441 (fla.2005) (stating the cumulative effect of evidentiary errors and allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel will be considered together).",79
"the reiterations of statements from the city of pasadena case in water users etc. assn. v. railroad com., 188 cal. 437, 443 [3] [ 205 p. 682] and baldwin v. railroad com., 206 cal. 581, 587 [3] [ 275 p. 425], also are disapproved.",80
"in reaching this conclusion, the court stated that it believed the sequence of events as documented in kinney's arrest report that the officer was beginning to pat down defendant when defendant dropped the backpack.",81
"moreover, the confrontation.",82
"""""stated differently, relief may be granted only where there 'is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome,' i.e., there is a 'substantial, not just conceivable, likelihood of a different result.'""""",83
"pt today, inc v comm'r of office of fin & ins servs, 270 mich app 110, 127; 715  nw2d 398 (2006) (quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).",84
"to the extent they are inconsistent with our analysis, we disapprove darden v. general motors corp., supra, 40 cal.app.4th 342, and its progeny, barr v. acands, inc. (1997) 57 cal.app.4th 1038.",85
"see bernhardt v. state, 684 n.w.2d 465, 476-77 (minn.",86
  28 the first requirement of the tacit admission rule actually has two parts: that the statement was incriminating and that the natural reaction of an innocent person would be to deny it.,87
see id. at 847-850.,88
"both anderson, supra, and page, supra, are now expressly overruled.",89
"moreover, here, it was not only foreseeable that the co-employees would negligently fail to install the guardrails, it had actually occurred many times in the past.",90
aclu pretrial justice manual at 42.,91
"because c.o.'s responses to the district court's questions during the competency inquiry independently supported the court's on-the-record competency ruling, the district court's purported reliance on c.o.'s trial testimony in making its ruling was inconsequential.",92
"given the supreme court's decision in gaudin, we conclude that beuttenmuller's holding that materiality under section 1006 is a question of law for the court has been overruled.",93
"to the extent that the holding in travelers ins. co. v. fancher, supra, is inconsistent with our holding here, it is overruled.",94
"cases in which it has been held or assumed that those rules apply to reinstated appeals are disapproved insofar as they are inconsistent with the views expressed herein (e.g., people v. jaquish (1966) 244 cal.app.2d 444, 448 [ 53 cal.rptr. 123]; people v. boyden (1965) 237 cal.app.2d 695, 697 [ 47 cal.rptr. 136]; people v. garner (1965) 234 cal.app.2d 212, 215, fn. 1 [ 44 cal.rptr. 217]; people v. benavidez.",95
"after carefully weighing considerations of stare decisis against the persuasive criticisms of the dupuy rule, we conclude that this artificial and potentially harmful rule must be abandoned.",96
a close reading of the record in this case shows that applicant has established that he has significant deficits in his adaptive functioning so as to support the habeas court's determination that he is intellectually disabled under current medical standards.,97
"although the jury could have concluded appellant was in some state of fear, """"a mere claim of fear"""" by a defendant does not, standing alone, establish the existence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause.",98
"for the reasons that follow, we overrule the simpson decision.",99
"having concluded that the statutory analysis set forth in shannon, part ii was fundamentally flawed, we now depart from its holding that krs 503.120 (1) precludes the assertion of self-protection and the other krs chapter 503 justifications as defenses to charges of wanton murder, second-degree manslaughter, or reckless homicide (as well as to charges of wanton or reckless assault), and reinstate the holdings in thompson v. commonwealth, supra, and kohlheim v. commonwealth.",100
a majority of the active judges of this court have voted to dissolve the en banc court.,101
"to the extent that foster holds otherwise, it is overruled.",102
"for the reasons that follow, we approve the fourth district's decision below, reversing the trial court's dismissal of respondents' title ix claim, and disapprove the line of cases that establishes a bright-line rule that an amendment asserting a new cause of action cannot relate back to the filing of the original complaint.",103
our supreme court held the trial court's order did not violate separation of powers principles despite the fact that a legislative committee deleted a line-item appropriation for this particular fee award.,104
"upon the authority of odom, we hereby recede from our inadvertent comment in singleton.",105
"2 k. o'malley, j. grenig, & w. lee, federal jury practice and instructions: criminal  31:03, p. 225 (6th ed. 2008) (emphasis added); see also id.,  31:02, at 220 (explaining that a defendant must """"intend to agree and must intend that the substantive offense be committed """" (emphasis added)).",106
id. at 133.,107
"wheeler points to no state statute that would authorize appointed counsel for his  1983 claims, and his constitutional claims find no support in our precedent.",108
"any statements in decisions of the district courts of appeal contrary to the rule announced in this decision are disapproved, e.g., cherry v. hayden, 100 cal.app.2d 416 [ 223 p.2d 878]; popcorn equipment co. v. page, 92 cal.app.2d 448 [ 207 p.2d 647]; olds v. peebler, 66 cal.app.2d 76 [ 151 p.2d 901]; liberty mut. ins. co. v. superior court, 62 cal.app.2d 601 [ 145 p.2d 344]; johnston v. ota, 43 cal.app.2d 94 [ 110 p.2d 507]; estate of fulton, 8 cal.app.2d 423 [ 48 p.2d 120]; plum v. indian valley bank, 118 cal.app. 13 [ 4 p.2d 543].",109
husband contends that recitation of the terms of an agreement into the record is sufficient to satisfy section 31-15-2-17(a)'s writing requirement.,110
"the decision in southwestern bell tel. co. v. nelson, supra, no longer should be considered as expressive of law applicable to the issue.",111
"see maples v. state, 758 so. 2d 1, 25 (ala. crim. app. 1999) (holding that, although the police were armed with guns at the time of the search, there was no indication that they used the guns to coerce the appellant into consenting to the search).",112
"we now disavow that part of the opinion in apple which takes into account only the former ""commencement"" date.",113
"in light of the unmistakable language in lincoln savings loan that ""the presence of an ensuing benefit ... is not controlling,"" we conclude that such parts of richmond television, darlington-huntsville, and georator as may be interpreted as establishing a one-year standard for distinguishing between capital and current costs, are no longer authoritative.",114
"in reviewing the evidence for legal sufficiency, we determine whether all of the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the challenged finding, is such that a factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction that the challenged finding is true.",115
"##coito v. superior court, reversed not overruled",116
and we therefore disapprove of wyche to the extent it holds to the contrary.,117
"to the extent that this court's decision in harris is inconsistent with this opinion, it is expressly overruled.",118
"the assistant state's attorney's actions may or may not have been inadvertent; however, it is still the role of the prosecutor to present the  pertinent law to the grand jury. di vincenzo, 183 ill.2d at 254, 233 ill.dec. 273, 700 n.e.2d 981. subjecting a defendant to criminal prosecution in this case based on the state's incorrect presentation of the law to the grand jury deprived him of his right to due process, whether the assistant state's attorney's actions were intentional or not.",119
"in re t.p., 12th dist. butler no. ca2015-08-164, 2016-ohio-72,  19.",120
"our decisions in moreno v. nelson, supra, baskerville v. nelson, supra, turner v. lloyd, supra, and conway v. wilson, supra, to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion, are overruled.",121
"to the extent that lee v. state, 490 p.2d 1206, 1210 (alaska 1971), holds otherwise, we hereby overrule that case.",122
"to the extent inconsistent with today's decision, lyman v. national mortgage bond corp. is overruled",123
"again, a couple of times, gdowski seemed to loosely reference a two-year opportunity given to russell at the lapeer store with assurance pay.",124
"see holbrook, 475 us at 569-571.",125
"to the extent that our writing in hilltop village is inconsistent with what is said here, the former opinion is overruled.",126
"siewe v. gonzales, 480 f.3d 160, 170 (2d cir. 2007) (""""[a] single false document or a single instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien's uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence."""").",127
"an """"advertising structure"""" """"means a structure of any kind or character erected, used, or maintained for outdoor advertising purposes, upon which any poster, bill, printing, painting or other advertisement of any kind whatsoever may be   placed . . . ."""" ( 5203.)",128
"in din, justice kennedy reiterated that """"respect for the political branches' broad power over the creation and administration of the immigration system"""" meant that the government need provide only a statutory citation to explain a visa denial.",129
"because we find that the crane case was wrongfully decided, we overrule that decision and reverse the trial court's order dismissing muhammad's claims.",130
"thus, the record reflects the prosecutor permissibly commented on what the evidence was expected to show at trial, and we find no error as alleged by defendant.",131
"""""a defendant is entitled to  a jury trial . . . only if he can demonstrate"""" that those penalties - which consist of """"the maximum authorized period of incarceration"""" together with """"any additional statutory penalties"""" - """"are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a 'serious' one.""""",132
"we simply stated that """" '[i]n its discretion, a reviewing court """"may reduce the degree of an offense to a lesser[-]included offense when the evidence fails to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the greater offense.""""",133
"see united states v. houston, 813 f.3d 282, 296 (6th cir. 2016).",134
"the majority's holding that """"a police officer  being 'familiar with' a resident of an area where the officer works does not, by itself, reasonably imply a prior bad act by that person"""" is contrary to this well-established case law.",135
"to the extent that this court's opinion in doseck held otherwise, it is hereby overruled.",136
id. at 78-79 (3).,137
"the court found that the assault occurred while children were present, causing them emotional trauma.",138
"because brown is inconsistent with both the plain language of the mail fraud statute and precedents of the supreme court, we overrule brown and hold that the district court did not err when it gave the pattern jury instruction for mail fraud.",139
"in determining whether a complaint has alleged a plausible claim for relief, we """"consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.""""",140
"insofar as brachbill is read to mean pecuniary inducement alone will suffice without proof of intimidation, it is disapproved.",141
"finally, sandoval relies on boget v. state, 74 s.w.3d 23 (tex. crim. app. 2002), for the proposition that the key inquiry in evaluating whether the law of self-defense applies in a case is whether the defendant directed his force against another.",142
"finally, clifford sought to initiate a mortgage fraud complaint, and in connection with that he gave a written statement to mary jones in which it appears that he lied when he claimed that neither he nor mary had attended the nautica property closing and when he claimed that he got $312,500 to purchase the nautica property """"[f]rom the proceeds from the farmington hills purchase.""""",143
"elliot podhorzer, esq., court attorney for the subject child, having moved on the child's behalf for leave to respond, as a poor person, to the appeal taken from two orders of the family court, new york county, entered on or about april 26, 2018 and may 2, 2018, and for assignment of counsel, a free copy of the transcript, and for related relief, now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of (1) assigning, pursuant to 1120 of the family court act, hani m. moskowitz, esq., 225 broadway, suite #715, new york, ny 10007, telephone no. (212) 227-8208, as counsel for purposes of responding to the appeal; (2) permitting movant to respond to the appeal upon a reproduced respondent's brief, on condition that one copy of such brief be served upon the attorney for respondent-appellant and 8 copies thereof are filed with this court.",144
the majority wisely corrects our mistake in mendiola by overruling that case's interpretation of these rules.,145
"second, the district court may also measure the defendant's role against other participants, to the extent they are discernable, in that relevant conduct.",146
we disapprove orange county v. sealy to the extent that it conflicts with this decision.,147
"to the extent that jennings is inconsistent with our holding herein, it is hereby disapproved.",148
"barclay's rule 60(b) motion was a """"true"""" one, and not a second or successive habeas petition, because it alleged """"a defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding.""""",149
"until those fact findings are made in a bench trial, it cannot be determined what is or is not necessary under the ada.",150
"an abuse of discretion occurs if the court """"'fails to apply the proper legal standard or to follow proper procedures in making the determination, or bases an award upon findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.'""""",151
"therefore, we overrule the case of martin v. vapor honing company insofar as it conflicts with this decision.",152
"for the same reason, we disapprove dictum in people v. rivera (1985) 41 cal.3d 388 [ 221 cal.rptr. 562, 710 p.2d 362] to the effect that the rule of burton, supra, 6 cal.3d 375, survives the high court's holding in fare, supra, 442 u.s. 707, as a ""component of the state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.""",153
"in nomura, the defendant was charged with physically abusing his wife, the complaining witness.",154
"however, we now specifically overrule the holdings in the case of city of kingfisher v. altizer, 13 okla. 121, 74 p. 107, and other cases of similar import of effect that plaintiff in an action for personal injury need not in any case submit to a physical examination.",155
"to the extent larabee is contrary to this opinion, it is overruled.",156
"in accordance with the above principles, we overrule bates v. donnafield, supra, insofar as it denied a woman a cause of action for loss of consortium.",157
"we disapprove cristich v. allen engineering, inc., 458 so.2d 76 (fla. 5th dca 1984), to the extent it conflicts with the present opinion.",158
"with regard to the conflict cases, we disapprove the decisions in israel and miller to the extent that they rejected the inherent authority of the trial court as a basis for awarding attorneys' fees.",159
we granted certiorari in light of disagreement among the circuits.,160
"to the extent doneff v. treasurer of state of missouri , 965 s.w.2d 255 (1998), and brown are contrary to this opinion, they are overruled.",161
we thus disapprove of the language of these court of appeals cases to the extent that they hold or suggest otherwise.,162
"in re carrington h., 483 s.w.3d 507, 522 (tenn.",163
"as such, la.civ. code art. 2365 is not applicable to the matter before us, and we specifically overrule this holding in nash.",164
"however, standing, a component of a court's subject-matter jurisdiction, cannot be conceded or waived.",165
"rivera was eighteen at the time and living under the care of her mother, correa, and her stepfather, julio escobar. rivera was taken to a hospital, where she was treated for seizure disorder.",166
"specifically, we explained:",167
"thus, we reverse such a denial """"only if the evidence points so strongly and so overwhelmingly in favor of the nonmoving party that no reasonable juror could return a contrary verdict.""""",168
"the case of state ex rel. city of st. louis v. public service commission, 362 mo. 977, 245 s.w.2d 851, which the principal opinion overrules, was, in my opinion, soundly ruled and should be followed.",169
"busby, 253 s.w.3d at 663.",170
"rather, the court would consider it an action for """"recovery"""" of property under article 2934, which is exempt.",171
"however, our analysis is contrary to the rationale, if not the holding, of in re estate of gainer, 579 so.2d 739, which stressed the lack of proof of a gift inter vivos in concluding that the statutory presumption had been rebutted.",172
any language in the crouch opinion contrary to this opinion is disapproved.,173
"accordingly, we now overrule hall v. state, supra, and its progeny, to the extent these cases hold that it is not error for a trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction on accomplice corroboration so long as the state relies in part on other evidence connecting the defendant to the crime.",174
"to the extent that the miller case may be construed as declaring unlawful the picketing of a business by non-employees, it is no longer authoritative.",175
"""""sitting in equity, the district court is a 'court of conscience.'""""",176
fww raises essentially the same argument here.,177
"""""however, before projected earnings from other employment opportunities not sought or accepted by the discharged employee can be applied in mitigation, the employer must show that the other employment was comparable, or substantially similar, to that of which the employee has been deprived; the employee's rejection of or failure to seek other available employment of a different or inferior kind may not be resorted to in order to mitigate damages.",178
"to the extent the holdings in glick, contestible, moreland and sunshine realty are in conflict with the requirements of due process, they are overruled.",179
"unlike the situation where there is no forum-selection clause, the plaintiff """"must bear the burden of showing why the court should not transfer the case to the forum to which the parties agreed.""""",180
"turning first to the most important factor, we already have seen that the cursory analysis in division 2 of harrison and its progeny is unsound and inconsistent with the proper interpretation of statutes similar to ocga  5540 (a).",181
"to the extent that tracy v. macintyre, 29 cal.app.2d 145 [ 84 p.2d 526], is inconsistent with the views expressed herein, that case is disapproved.",182
"see, e.g., united states v. coven, 662 f.2d 162, 176 (2d cir. 1981).",183
"because kibria's claims were all based on the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility ruling is dispositive of asylum, withholding of   removal, and cat relief.",184
"id. (quoting riyaz a. kanji, the proper scope of pendent appellate jurisdiction in the collateral order context, 100 yale l.j. 511, 530 (1990)).",185
"davis' attempt to limit the holding of johnson to only those future creditors who have """"parted with money in favor of a property owner"""" is unpersuasive.",186
"based on the holding in mitchell, the primary basis for the holding in osorio no longer remains sound.",187
"insofar as it is inconsistent with this conclusion the opinion of this court in people v. ruef, supra, 14 cal.app. 576, 623-632, is overruled.",188
"the court must grant a directed verdict if, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, it finds that reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion on any determinative issue and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party.",189
"to the extent that this ruling is inconsistent with thomas v. state, 824 so.2d 1 (ala.crim.app. 1999), davenport v. city of birmingham, 570 so.2d 1298 (ala.crim.app. 1990), ex parte williams, 468 so.2d 99 (ala. 1985), and howard v. state, 108 ala. 571, 18 so. 813 (1895), those cases are overruled.",190
"debilitating medical condition means cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (hiv), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (aids), hepatitis c, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (als), crohn's disease, parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis or other conditions for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient.",191
"to the extent that fiscal court of jefferson county v. ogden, ky.app. 556 s.w.2d 899 (1977) conflicts with the opinion in this case, it is overruled.",192
"we therefore recede from our opinion in clark v. muldrew, supra.",193
"to the extent that our previous opinion in state of louisiana, and ralph slaughter, secretary, department of revenue and taxation v. bp exploration oil inc., 95-2031 (la.app. 4 cir. 1/31/96), 667 so.2d 1219 conflicts with this decision, it is overruled.",194
"as the comments to the nca suggest, this approach to calculating deficiencies is """"the more equitable approach"""" that properly balances the concerns of creditors left with large unpaid   balances when a consumer defaults after purchase and the interest in shielding consumers from unnecessary or unnecessarily inflated deficiency claims.",195
"therefore, to the extent that swindle is inconsistent with ely and this decision, it is overruled.",196
the question in katzenbach had nothing to do with stand-alone judicial power under the fourteenth amendment.,197
"mass transit admin. v. granite constr. co., 57 md. app. 766, 773-74 (1984).",198
"to the extent davies is read to give a purchaser who is not also the judgment creditor the unilateral right to withdraw their bid before confirmation, we reject this reading.",199
68 and yet the court's analysis unmistakably demanded of mr. talley something more than notice-pleading.,200
"the memorandum highlights that, for the first time, this court held that """"whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.""""",201
"wages are considered """"due"""" within the meaning of section 206 either when the employer concedes they are due or, when following investigation and hearing, the labor commissioner rules they must be paid.",202
"insofar as the givens case holds contrary to our original opinion herein or to the rule expressed in the carr case and the cases there cited, it is expressly overruled.",203
"there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that garcia was present for the signing of the subcontract, garcia helped mata run fast & neat, and the plaintiffs were employees of and paid by fast & neat.",204
"tex. r. civ. p. 166a(c); margetis v. frost nat'l bank, no. 02-12-00027-cv, 2012 wl 4936611, at *2 (tex. app.fort worth oct. 18, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). here, palacios is not arguing that patel failed to establish her entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.",205
"we expressly disapprove and overrule the procedure of converting the appeal from a non-final judgment to a supervisory writ and then considering the merits, as was done in karim v. finch shipping co., ltd., and walker, bordelon, hamlin, theriot and hardy, etc. v. dowe.",206
"whatever may be said for the proposition that vines was overruled sub silentio by spears, we conclude that insofar as it stands for the proposition that a utility company owes no duty to persons who may, through foreseeable negligence, come in contact with its poles, vines must be overruled.",207
ordering the parties to recalculate was not erroneous burden-shifting.,208
we now expressly overrule the bowers and braden courts and hold that the plaintiff's minority does not toll the medical malpractice statute of repose.,209
"in fenelon v. state, 594 so.2d 292 (fla. 1992), the supreme court disapproved the giving of the flight instruction on the ground that it constitutes an impermissible comment upon the evidence.",210
"to the contrary, it forms the basis of his ineffectiveness claim.",211
"statements in the following cases inconsistent with this holding are disapproved: allen v. department of personnel administration, supra; phillips v. state personnel bd., supra; harris v. state personnel bd., supra; goggin v. state personnel bd., supra; zike v. state personnel bd., supra; curia v. civil service com., supra; armistead v. state personnel bd., supra; and willson v. state personnel bd., supra",212
but there is little basis for this belief.,213
"we take this opportunity to announce a consistent, if not always clear-cut rule to be followed in future cases: both victim impact and victim character evidence are admissible, in the context of the mitigation special issue, to show the uniqueness of the victim, the harm caused by the defendant, and as rebuttal to the defendant's mitigating evidence.",214
"to the extent our opinion in boxx v. long warrior, 265 f.3d 771, 776 (9th cir. 2001), states that montana's first exception is limited to ""commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements"" and that ""such [other] arrangements also must be of a commercial nature,"" we disapprove the statement.",215
"examples of parties that have been """"preclude[d] from intervening in a proceeding"""" per this agrico """"substantial interest"""" test are mid-chattahoochee river users, 948 so. 2d at 797, and city of sunrise, 615 so. 2d at 748two cases where the petitioners lacked standing for alleging mere economic injury, and not the kind of injury for which the proceeding was designed to protect, namely, the protection and conservation of water and related land sources.",216
"to the extent that any of these cases may be read for the proposition that the issue of a trial court's compliance with ocga  19615 is never subject to waiver, they are hereby disapproved.",217
"morris v. bank one, ind., n.a., 789 n.e.2d 68, 73 (ind. ct. app. 2003), trans.",218
precedent authorizing such inference is overruled.,219
"to the extent our statements in bullfrog marina, inc., eie, spears, and hall suggest that extrinsic evidence of a separate oral agreement is admissible where the contract contains a clear integration clause, we disavow them.",220
"see g. l. c. 131,  91. an appeal from a decision by an agency, pursuant to g. l. c. 30a,  14, must be filed in the superior court within thirty days of the issuance of the agency's determination.",221
"olson's plea colloquy reflects confusion; he admitted to both soliciting a minor whom he believed was 15 years old and a minor who was """"over the age of 16."""" due to this discrepancy, the district court concluded that olson had not provided a sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea.",222
"in bassil v. united states, 517 a.2d 714, 717 n. 5 (d.c. 1986), the court acknowledged that van arsdall effectively overruled its decision in springer.",223
"however, insofar as that case may be in conflict with the opinion in the present case it is overruled.",224
"to the extent that delaney suggests otherwise, it is disapproved.",225
we hold that carter and earlier decisions declaring that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment constitutes a motion for a new trial were incorrectly decided.,226
"roberts express v. bauman, 6th dist. lucas no. l-89-197, 1990 ohio app. lexis 1513 (apr. 20, 1990).",227
"therefore, we reverse the decision of the commonwealth court and remand to that court for further proceedings in this matter not inconsistent with this opinion.",228
"and, on each occasion, the defense took issue with the reasons offered by the prosecutor in support of the strike.""""",229
"we reject the ""rule of completeness"" articulated in mcrae and expressly overrule that decision.",230
"18 a.l.r. fed. 2d 223 (originally published in 2007, continuously updated) (citing 28 u.s.c.  1332(d)(2)).",231
7. child custody: appeal and error.,232
"but see state v. parks, 265 kan. 644, 649, 962 p.2d 486 (1998) (noting victim impact statements could be used by sentencing judge in assessing extent of harm caused by defendant's conduct; and although statement contained information not bearing on that, record did not show court improperly considered it).",233
i am troubled by the majority's decision to overrule these cases without first balancing the reliance interests that will be disturbed by overruling these cases against the costs of adhering to the holdings in smith and tatum in order to determine whether the dictates of stare decisis justify overruling those cases.,234
"miranda is inconsistent with the earlier issued opinion in garcia, we decline to follow it based on this circuit's rule that one panel may not overrule a prior panel opinion and the earlier precedent controls.",235
"while this course of action was proper under our earlier precedent, the supreme court's holding in glenn directly repudiated the application of any form of heightened standard of review to claims denials in which a conflict of interest is present.",236
"but that is a very narrow slice of the pie; we have said the term """"'questions of law' refers to those issues that were historically reviewable on habeasconstitutional and statutory-construction questions, not discretionary or factual questions.""""",237
"to the extent that they are inconsistent with our ruling here united states gypsum co. v. shaffer, supra, 7 cal.2d 454, is overruled and bernstein v. rubin, supra, 152 cal.app.2d 51; bank of america v. gesler, supra, 252 cal.app.2d 565 and estate of vose, supra, 4 cal.app.3d 454, are disapproved.",238
 { 31} we find that the contempt in this case was criminal in nature.,239
"in what almost amounts to an afterthought, we employ a footnote to partially overrule more than fifteen published opinions of this court decided within the last six years.",240
"in light of the above described development of the law of sanctions, the persuasive reasoning of commentators, the combined wisdom of several other courts of appeals, and the fact that the supreme court significantly undercut gamble in roadway, we now most respectfully overrule gamble.",241
"accordingly, the relevance of ossorio's testimony with respect to the prejudice prong of strickland is substantially less than is typically the case with credible alibi evidence.",242
"thus, given the lack of meaningful analysis in gonzalez, that the gonzalez court misconstrued watson, and, critically, that the decision was at odds with well established case law, we now come to the conclusion that it must be overruled.",243
certified for partial publication.,244
"further, the prosecutor's closing arguments consistently tied the current incident to defendant's purported state of mind in 1991.",245
we disapprove of those statements in brooks and green because deterrence is directed at persons who have committed wrongful acts.,246
"the louisiana supreme court in cichirillo, clarified difference in considering evidence in support of a motion for summary judgment, as opposed to evidence in support of a peremptory exception of prescription.",247
the court of appeals affirmed.,248
"  aguilar's distinction between inherently and noninherently deadly weapons is reflected in calcrim no. 875's definition of """"deadly weapon,"""" which states: """"a deadly weapon other than a firearm is any object, instrument, or weapon that is [1] inherently deadly or [2] one that is used in such a way that it is capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury.""""",249
"a court of equity can refuse to require removal of an encroachment where """"the cost of removal by the defendant[s] would be greatly disproportionate to the injury to the plaintiff from [the] continuation"""" of the encroachment.",250
"after the evidence was presented at the denial hearing, the court ruled that it would enter a """"true finding as to the sole count of criminal trespass.""""",251
the spouse to whom a liability is allocated is responsible for paying that debt.,252
"we reject the defendant's contention that the marriage relationship and the right of consortium deriving therefrom preclude the state from ever establishing the nonconsensual entry requisite to the crime of burglary, and we disapprove the third district's contrary ruling in vazquez.",253
"1998), implicitly overruled that line of cases when it held that c.a.r. 26(a) ""guides the computation of time in determining whether a person has complied with the jurisdictional requirement; it does not alter the jurisdictional effect of a statutory deadline for taking an appeal.",254
we disapprove these cases.,255
"the speedy trial clock tolled from february 28 until march 1, 2017, while martin was without counsel.",256
"[4] balser remained in jail after this arrest, but the task force continued its investigation.",257
"having decided that united states v. hartley is no longer the law of this circuit, we remand to the original panel in this case all other matters to be resolved in this appeal.",258
"however, in in re taylor, 84 b.r. 159, 160 (bankr.e.d.mo. 1988), judge barta distinguished wallace and concluded that because the debtor made required contributions pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and had no control over the amount contributed or the manner or time of distribution, the debtor's pension plan was not self-settled.",259
"plunkett v. spaulding, supra, 52 cal.app.4th 114, is disapproved to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.",260
"because we determine that plaintiff's combined rule 52, 59, and 60 motion was not timely served on defendant as to the 10 january orders, which in turn rendered plaintiff's appeal from those underlying orders untimely, we decline to grant plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari in coa17-1119 to address the merits of his appeal, see infra.",261
our holding overruling this aspect of copelin and similar cases has been circulated to and approved by the full court and thus constitutes the law of the circuit.,262
"also, to the extent that colvin, green, and other cases are in conflict with our holding today, they are overruled.",263
we overrule part of norman and hold that alaska foods' action should not have been dismissed.,264
"accordingly, we approve amisub and ventimiglia and disapprove leikensohn, argonaut, north miami general hospital, and teperson to the extent they are inconsistent with this opinion.",265
"the court of appeals panel erred in anderson, and we overrule that decision.",266
28. contracts: proof.,267
"however, to the extent either decision may be inconsistent with the analysis herein, it is disapproved.",268
"finally, to the extent that schenck holds that there is no fiduciary duty on the part of the introducing broker in circumstances similar to those presented in the case at bar, we reject the holding.",269
"(in re aurora p. (2015) 241 cal.app.4th 1142, 1154, fn. 7.)",270
"because the decision arguably departs from this circuit's prior decision in united states ex rel. starr v. mulligan, 59 f.2d 200 (2d cir. 1932), and explicitly overrules united states v. brothman, 191 f.2d 70 (2d cir. 1951), this opinion has been circulated among the active members of the court.",271
"rush's remaining claim that the courtroom was closed during jury voir dire, in violation of her sixth amendment right to a public trial, is without merit and partially unpreserved.",272
"as discussed in state v. dejesus, this interpretation of tiedemann is erroneous, and we disavow it.",273
"thus, in cases presenting factual scenarios like that before us, we can no longer adhere to our decision in johnson, and to the extent it thus conflicts with our holding today, it is overruled.",274
"in light of the above discussion, therefore, we overrule in re oberkoetter.",275
"alternatively, the state argues that there is no evidence that the police engaged in an """"ask first, warn later"""" interrogation in violation of seibert, and so at least his second statement, which he made after receiving miranda warnings, was admissible.",276
father's remaining issues challenge various provisions of the trial court's modification order.,277
"id. at 354, 775 s.e.2d at 331.",278
"1981), and sandefer v. reynolds securities, inc., 44 colo. app. 343, 618 p.2d 690 (1980), are overruled to the extent inconsistent with this opinion.",279
"in that 1) brashier has engendered confusion on attorney fee recoverability in um/uim litigation by an insured against his/her insurer; 2) brashier does support insurer's argument that the attorney fee issue should have been submitted to the jury for resolution as an element or item of damage under barnes' tort theory of recovery; 3) brashier misinterpreted the import of christian, supra as to the potential for the recovery of attorney fees in um/uim litigation between an insured and his/her insurer; and 4) brashier, in our view, exhibited an unwarranted deviation from the american rule concerning the allowance of attorney fees, we decide in this case that brashier, to the extent it held a um/uim insured plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees as a common law element of damage for an insurer's bad faith refusal to settle a um/uim loss, should be overruled.",280
the following is a partial listing of the cases which are overruled insofar as they hold an expert witness cannot testify as to bodily position at the time of a homicide:,281
"""""[t]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.""""",282
"any language in people v. harrison, 176 cal.app.2d 330, 335 [ 1 cal.rptr. 414], which could be understood as being in conflict with the views expressed herein is disapproved.",283
"we have concluded the district court of appeal properly held in this cause that a lessee for a term of years is, for the purpose of the statute, an owner and, as such, is entitled to recover business damages under the provisions thereof, any holding of gross, supra, to the contrary notwithstanding.",284
"therefore, we overrule all cases contrary to this holding.",285
"according to the court, the categorical approach is unconstitutionally vague.",286
"accordingly, the majority opinion in city of new orleans v. state, 364 so.2d 1020 (la. 1978), which was already undermined, is disapproved to the extent that it is inconsistent with the present opinion and other decisions of this court.",287
i. dish's appeal,288
"under these circumstances we must conclude that the contrary holdings of darlington v. owen county recc, ky., 299 s.w.2d 599; aetna life ins. co. v. bethel, 140 ky. 609, 131 s.w. 523; and madison coal corp. v. altmire, 215 ky. 283, 284 s.w. 1068, are out of harmony with the present view, and to the extent of their conflict with the rule here approved, are overruled.",289
"the portion of anderson v. calderon, 232 f.3d 1053, that reached a contrary conclusion is overruled.",290
"in doing so, we recede from jackson, russman and our other cases holding that unpronounced, but otherwise unobjectionable, conditions of probation contained in probation orders must be stricken and cannot be reimposed.",291
the board and two judges of this court would evidently abolish the long-established principle of old monk which in this case dictates dismissal of the petition for cancellation.,292
"in muhammad, this court rejected a similar claim by an inmate that the clemency process was flawed and amounted to a denial of due process.",293
"rompilla v. beard, 545 u.s. 374, 387, 125 s. ct. 2456, 162 l. ed. 2d 360 (2005).",294
"as mentioned earlier, local government units can be held liable for  1983 claims only if a constitutional violation has occurred.",295
tex. civ. prac. & rem. code ann.  150.002(f) (west 2011).,296
"suffice it to say, that most prior oklahoma authority which would prevent a spouse's free and voluntary consent to be used to validate a warrantless search is, in our opinion, distinguishable; in any case, to the extent prior cases are contra to our present holding, they are hereby expressly overruled.",297
we hereby recede from anything said in conyers contrary to the views expressed herein.,298
"to the extent that these cases improperly place the burden of showing or proving sudden heat on the defendant, and to that extent only, these cases are overruled.",299
"see hubbell, 530 u.s. at 43.",300
" therefore, joshua v. state should be overruled, and we expressly do so now.",301
i thought the principle of new york times v. sullivan secure.,302
"[2] father and t.b. (""""mother"""") are the parents of child, who was born october 7, 2014. three months later, on january 16, 2015, the indiana department of child services (""""dcs"""") filed a petition alleging child was a child in need of services (""""chins"""") because mother had tested positive for various drugs at   child's birth.",303
"the cases of in re brown, supra, and lee v. mckay, supra, are disapproved in so far as their holding is in conflict with this opinion.",304
"it apply describes our action in these appeals as we overrule our prior holding in in re natta, 388 f.2d 215 (3d cir. 1968), which erroneously gave a broad interpretation to 35 u.s.c.  24 (1952).",305
the only semblance of moderation associated with today's writing is the strategic decision to overrule st. elizabeth hospital while apparently leaving all related law in place.,306
our legislature has also expressly carved out appeals challenging search and seizure rulings.,307
"in affirming the defendant's convictions and sentence, the court of appeals generally disapproved trial court consideration of the lsi-r as ""contrary to the essential function of the trial court in sentencing.",308
"id. """"if the trial court's findings of fact are upheld, the appellate court must decide whether the dispositive ruling was fair and equitable in light of those facts.""""",309
"he was never present for the court to ask him whether he could pay the forfeiture, nor did kerr ever ask for an indigency hearing.",310
"to the extent that they may be said to be in conflict herewith, our prior holdings in gardner and carnation, supra, are hereby specifically overruled.",311
"to the extent that in re mapes, d.c. s.d.cal. 1954, 120 f. supp. 316, is inconsistent with this holding, it is hereby overruled.",312
"finally, the sixth trac factor goes directly to a primary dispute regarding the costanza standard.",313
"parker vi, 873 so.2d at 283.",314
the policy does not provide deadlines.,315
"any suggestion that our case presents a new phenomenon, then, risks overlooking this long history.",316
"five of the other partieswells fargo, lehman   brothers, aurora, bnc mortgage, and sascare in privity with u.s. bank and sailt through various contracts or arrangements.",317
"lopez asks that we reconsider dennis in light of studies that """"conclude children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement.""""",318
"{2} counsel for defendant-appellant, rick thomas fehrenbach, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to anders v. california, 386 u.s. 738, 87 s.ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose   any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors """"that might arguably support the appeal,"""" anders, at 744, 87 s.ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.",319
"davis v. davis, 360 n.c. 518, 523, 631 s.e.2d 114, 118 (2006) (citing sink v. easter, 288 n.c. 183, 198, 217 s.e.2d 532, 541 (1975)).",320
see id.  232.116(2)(b).,321
"to the extent that fortier, supra, and adkison, supra, hold otherwise, they are hereby overruled.",322
"s.c. code ann.  29-3-660 (2007) (""""[i]f the mortgage debt be secured by the covenant or obligation of any person other than the mortgagor the plaintiff may make such person a party to the action and the court may adjudge payment of the residue of such debt remaining unsatisfied after a sale of the mortgaged premises against such other person and may enforce such judgment as in other cases.""""",323
"western wireline services, inc. v. pecos western corp., 377 so.2d 892 (la.app. 4th cir. 1979), and c-craft marine services, inc. v. llog exploration co., 470 so.2d 241 (la.app. 4th circ.), writ denied, 472 so.2d 921 (1985) are contrary, or may be contrary, they are overruled.",324
we therefore hold that diamond ii must be overruled.,325
"because courts of appeals have reached differing conclusions about what the due process clause requires of the united states when it seeks to provide notice to a federal inmate of its intention to forfeit property in which the inmate appears to have an interest, we granted certiorari to consider the adequacy of the fbi's notice to petitioner of its intended forfeiture of the cash.",326
"to the extent it is inconsistent with this analysis, we disapprove",327
"accordingly, i would proceed to address the merits and reverse as a genuine issue of fact exists.",328
"the district court specifically considered and rejected appellant's argument that the county's action of failing to initiate termination proceedings involving s.j. after that child's birth in 2014, and of allowing appellant to parent a.s. and t.s. after their father became unavailable to parent them in 2015, provides sufficient evidence to overcome her presumption of unfitness.",329
"in an important footnote to its opinion, the culligan court disapproved language in several court of appeal decisions ""indicating that the proper scope of review of such litigating positions of the board (announced either in tax bulletins or merely as the result of an individual audit) is to determine whether the board's assessment was arbitrary, capricious or had no reasonable or rational basis.",330
the circuit court vacated harris's mandatory sentence of life without parole and remanded for resentencing.,331
"j.a. 9013, 9072-73.",332
"we find no relevant distinction between a spouse and a nonrelated third party, so long as the evidence supports compensability under the three-part test set out in currier v. roman l. hruska u.s. meat animal res. ctr.  for compensability of in-home care, our focus is on the  nature of the service provided, not the status or devotion of the provider of the service.",333
"in the event the trial court cannot, for reasons of fairness, enter the order within the forty-day window  rodgers is overruled.",334
"these factors distinguish the case from the strawn and atkinson cases, supra, relied upon by plaintiff, and insofar as the duley case, supra, conflicts with the instant ruling on cause and effect it is no longer to be followed.",335
we therefore overrule schoebel as the law of this circuit.,336
"to the extent that this language in atwood is inconsistent with our holdings today and in thomas ii, it is disavowed.",337
"see rosenberg v. north bergen, 61 n.j. 190, 199 (1972) (""""the function of [a] statute [of repose] is thus rather to define substantive rights than to alter or modify a remedy""""); cronin v. howe, 906 s.w.2d 910, 913 (tenn.",338
"we further held that unliquidated debts could be acknowledged, overruling jurisprudence to the contrary.",339
"wachter v. united states, 689 f. supp. 1420, 1422 (d. md. 1988) (applying maryland law); hales v. pittman, 576 p.2d 493, 499 (ariz.",340
"a person who intentionally and with premeditation """"causes the death of another human being"""" is guilty of first-degree murder.",341
"in orpustan, we disapproved rodgers v. state farm mutual auto. ins. co., 13 cal.app.3d 641 [ 91 cal.rptr. 678]; and pacific automobile ins. co. v. lang",342
"however, the extent and effect of that autonomy remains in dispute, particularly in light of the other ways in which dha was in control of simpkins' work and employment.",343
"because there was admissible evidence to support the accusation that beavers possessed a firearm while he was a convicted felon in violation of north carolina law, which constituted a violation of the conditions of his probation, we disagree that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's revocation of his probation.",344
"he further noted that martin and unger modified basf's off-the-shelf liquids with additives, parameters, and plating processes claimed as novel in the '371 application.",345
in re rubottom is incorrect and must be overruled.,346
". on direct appeal, this court reversed the trial court and ordered a new trial.",347
"voisine and armstrong filed a joint petition for certiorari, and shortly after issuing castleman , this court (without opinion) vacated the first circuit's judgments and remanded the cases for further consideration in light of that decision.",348
"[9.] south dakota's version of the uniform arbitration act, found in sdcl chapter 21-25a, also fails to provide a right of appeal from the circuit court's order compelling arbitration.",349
"it further found that his statement midway through the interview was not a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent.",350
similarly overruled is the extension of the hopkins rule and rationale as the basis for naming the mspb respondent in appeals of its decisions dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.,351
"first national bank of hollywood v. markham, 342 so.2d 1016 (fla. 4th dca 1977), is disapproved.",352
"estate of pepper, supra, 158 cal. 619, is therefore overruled.",353
"arguably, if campbell intended to be bound, then one should just read any gaps in the draft contribution agreement against him, when he signed a document that, on issues that the court of chancery found unresolved when looking at the parol evidence, tended to be highly unfavorable to him, if one ignores those gaps and the parol evidence, and solely focuses on the language of the draft contribution agreement.",354
"when asked what happened and who stabbed him, the defendant answered, """"i'm depressed.",355
"this court disagrees with the rationale of the court of appeals in city of springfield, finding the rationale of loving v. city of st. joseph more persuasive.",356
"father raises two issues for our review, which we restate as:",357
"we disapprove of miller v. miller, 848 s.w.2d 344 (tex.app.  texarkana 1993, no writ), el paso sharky's billiard parlor, inc. v. amparan, 831 s.w.2d 3 (tex.app.  el paso 1992, writ denied), and any other authorities in which the court of appeals has dismissed an appeal when the appellant has made a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction by filing a bond within the fifteen days of the date the bond was due.",358
"accordingly, to the extent that texas trading conflicts with our holding today that foreign states are not ""persons"" entitled to rights under the due process clause, it is overruled.",359
"while this is a correct statement of law, adams also incorrectly holds that the trial court must make written findings of fact when ordering restitution, a proposition that we overruled in mccart v. state, 289 ga.app. 830, 831(1), 658 s.e.2d 465 (2008), prior to deciding adams.",360
the language to the contrary in perez is disapproved.,361
"nabors drilling, u.s.a., inc. v. escoto, 288 s.w.3d 401, 404 (tex. 2009).",362
"neither has the [l]egislature seen fit to modify the law as expressed in [martin].""""",363
4. people's return,364
the court's discussion fails to adequately account for the origin of the specific intent element that both section 2(a) and 2(b) contain.,365
we disapprove this holding in bignotti insofar as it conflicts with our present decision.,366
"leson has argued that plaintiff's admission in her deposition that the water on the service bay floor was """"open and obvious"""" defeats her claim.",367
"after careful and deliberate study of each of the cases and treatises cited by counsel for the respective parties, as supplemented by own independent research, we are constrained to overrule collins and adopt justice (later chief justice) gardner's dissent in that case.",368
"to the extent that these cases conflict with our decision today, such language and holdings are disapproved.",369
"""""economic benefit"""" is not an act or forbidden conduct.",370
"today we overrule these cases and hold, consistent with rule 32(e), that the ""fair and just"" standard applies to any motion for plea withdrawal that is made prior to the defendant's sentencing.",371
"to the extent that jackson is inconsistent with this holding, it is overruled.",372
"to the extent that stalvey, 25 fla. l. weekly at d961, hoffman, 745 so.2d at 987, siddal, 728 so.2d at 364, whiting, 711 so.2d at 1214, andharrell, 691 so.2d at 46, held that as a matter of law a trial court is precluded from considering the applicability of section 921.0016(4)(f) to crimes involving sexual conduct with minors, we disapprove those decisions.",373
"although some cases stressed the basic statutory purpose of protecting the integrity of prisons ( in re haines (1924) 68 cal.app. 522, 526-527 [ 229 p. 984]; people v. mackie (1929) 100 cal.app. 292, 293 [ 279 p. 821]; people v. serrano (1932) 123 cal.app. 339 [ 11 p.2d 81]; see in re haines (1925) 195 cal. 605 [ 234 p. 883]) others assumed that the statute applied at the moment a person was lawfully arrested.",374
we conclude remand is necessary given the unique questions involved and the limited facts available to us as an appellate court.,375
"by this determination, i conclude that in re fenstermacher, supra, is not good law and should be and hereby is overruled.",376
id. perry has not identified any out-of-court statements he gave under compulsion.,377
"we accordingly overrule our holding in the gilmartin case and hold that while the time spent as a cadet in the military academy may not be counted in computing length of service, such service is service in the military forces of the united states.",378
"the cases of us diagnostic v. shelby radiology, p.c., 793 so.2d 714 (ala. 2000), wilma corp. v. fleming foods of alabama, inc., 613 so.2d 359 (ala. 1993), hinkle v. cargill, inc., 613 so.2d 1216 (ala. 1992), dean v. myers, 466 so.2d 952 (ala. 1985), and caron v. teagle, 408 so.2d 494 (ala. 1981), are overruled to the extent, but only to the extent, that they conflict with this holding.",379
"because the judgment in the taxpayer action is an illinois judgment, we would look to the law of illinois to determine whether claim preclusion bars the claim.",380
we note that silence of the district court in a judgment on any assignment of error that has been placed before it is deemed a rejection of the claim.,381
"accordingly, we approve the fifth district's decision below, and disapprove robbins v. yusem to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.",382
"adoption of leland, 65 mass. app. ct. 580, 584 (2006), quoting from care & protection of bruce, 44 mass. app. ct. 758, 761 (1998).",383
"to the extent warren and stolz disavow the second definition in queen, we reject their holdings.",384
we therefore disavow the wording in the willys jeep case and similar wording in other cases and decline to address plaintiffs' argument that idaho code section 391392b is patently absurd when construed as written.,385
"resolving this conflict in prior panel decisions of this court, we overrule both the holding and the reasoning in constant and its progeny (including pascarella and barron), and conclude that a homosexual parent bears no special evidentiary presumption in a child custody case.",386
"miller v. hotel savoy co. is out of line with the rationale of other cases above cited; it should not be followed, and it is therefore overruled.",387
"id. subsequently, the beneficiaries filed an amended petition, seeking raymon's immediate removal as trustee and a """"demand for damages of $1,500,000 for fraudulent misappropriation and intentional dissipation of trust funds.""""",388
"a rational compromise on the initial allocation was not invidious 'discrimination' of the kind prohibited by the duty of fair representation.""""",389
"nevertheless, to the extent that any or all of these opinions conflict with our holding herein that violation of a federal regulatory scheme will support a claim of negligence per se, they are expressly overruled.",390
any language to the contrary in prendiville or other cases is overruled.,391
"under those circumstances, the defendant waived any claim that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him in this action (see american home mtge. servicing, inc. v arklis, 150 ad3d at 1182).",392
"to the extent that we have equated the summary judgment and directed verdict standards, see, e.g., cameron v. changcraft, 251 p.3d 1008, 1017 & n. 16 (alaska 2011); braund, inc., 486 p.2d at 53, we disavow those misleading statements.",393
"2003), to the extent that it indicates that such a hearing is unnecessary.",394
mr. henderson makes much of the fact that the district court applied  2b1.1(b)(15)(a) contrary to the recommendation of the probation officer.,395
"i, therefore, conclude that my earlier decision in in re tallo was in error and i hereby reverse the effect of that decision by concluding that the household mortgage cannot be modified since it encumbers nothing but the real property that constitutes the debtors' residence.",396
"the admissions office also undertakes regular """"reliability analyses"""" to """"measure the frequency of readers scoring within one point of each other.""""",397
"daugherty v. hershberger, 386 pa. 367, 126 a.2d 730 (1956), was wrongly decided and must be overruled.",398
"in vacating the circuit court's suppression order, we overrule our prior decision in state v. endo, 83 hawaii 87, 924 p.2d 581 (app.1996), where we held under similar circumstances that a misdated search warrant was invalid.",399
"he therefore contends that he should have received only a 14-level enhancement, as without the losses from renue therapy, the intended loss amount would be more than $550,000 but less than $1,500,000.",400
2. evidence of the defendant's prior bad acts.,401
that prompt assertion of rights hurt no one.,402
"to the extent that payne v. state, supra,smith v. state, supra, 304 ga.app. 708, 699 s.e.2d 742, or any other case rejects the use of two standards of review as set forth above, they are hereby overruled.",403
"because this understanding is inconsistent with the approach of nutall, we have circulated this opinion to all active judges under circuit rule 40(e).",404
this sentence is hereby overruled so that the liability between banks involving payment of an item on a forged or unauthorized endorsement will be clearly governed by the decision in the instant case.,405
"people v. suarez, 224 ill. 2d 37, 47, 862 n.e.2d 977, 982 (2007).",406
"to the extent that other cases may be in conflict with this rule, we would now disapprove demars v. hickey, 13 wyo. 371, 80 p. 521, reh. denied 81 p. 705 (1905); sidlo, simons, day co. v. phillips, 48 wyo. 390, 49 p.2d 243 (1935); and tibbals v. graham.",407
""""" ' """"punitive damages are appropriate if the defendant's acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy.",408
"many of respondent's acts of misconduct, taken alone, would probably warrant no more than a public censure.",409
"richard e. odoms, hamburg, minnesota (pro se relator) gregory s. paulson, brodeen & paulson pllp, minneapolis, minnesota (for respondent) lee b. nelson, minnesota department of employment and economic development, st. paul, minnesota (for respondent department)",410
"the rule propounded in reese, to the extent that it conflicts with this holding, is overruled.",411
"the holding in farnsworth, supra, is overruled.",412
"we also have determined that the doctrine of legislative acquiescence in the wake of that decision does not command us, or persuade us, to adhere to that rule.",413
"we now adopt the rule tentatively ascribed to us by the prestin court, and disapprove the holdings in richard v. degen brody, inc., supra, 181 cal.app.2d 289 and hamilton v. dixon.",414
"zhong v. u.s. dep't of justice, 480 f.3d at 107, 120.",415
"we, therefore, overrule trahan, supra, to the extent that it conflicts with this holding and modify the cases listed in footnote six to conform to our holding here.",416
in so doing we disapprove the contrary interpretation of the statute announced in honeycutt.,417
"in so holding, we approve the second district's decision in thompson and disapprove the third district's decision in higgs.",418
"that distinction does not affect our holding, however, because we overrule the primary holding of huss on the basis of koon.",419
it argued that it had made timely assessments and that those assessments were presumptively correct.,420
"similarly, the published opinion of the court of civil appeals in metcalf v. oklahoma state board of licensure and supervision, 1992 ok civ app 174, 848 p.2d is also expressly disapproved to the extent that it might be construed to support the argument that district courts lack jurisdiction to hear appeals from a decision of the board denying an application for a medical license.",421
"to the extent that a contrary rule is expressed in terry v. state, 540 so.2d 782, 783-84 (ala.cr.app. 1988), cert. denied, 540 so.2d 785 (ala. 1989), it is expressly overruled.",422
"note: martin v. szeto is the current case, therefore not overruled.",423
"baroid div. of nl indus., inc., 660 f.2d at 446; accord dep't of labor v. occupational safety & health review comm'n, 938 f.2d 1116, 1117-18 (10th cir. 1991).",424
"see  state v. santos, 770 so.2d at 321 (per curiam ) (citing godinez v. moran, 509 u.s. 389, 399, 113 s.ct. 2680, 2687, 125 l.ed.2d 321 (1993)).",425
douglas also requests a 28 u.s.c.  2254(e) evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the state disclosed the cad report before trial.,426
"language to the contrary which we used in duehay v. acacia mutual life ins. co., infra, was unnecessary for decision in that case and is overruled.",427
"we overrule vasquez, under which innocent possession of a worn or altered autoloader can result in jail time",428
"while williams' pending claim was not affected by this 1999 legislation, this new legislation is relevant, as explained below, in that it further supports overruling boutte.",429
"to the extent that stewart or macone suggest that a ""should have known"" standard is sufficient, they should no longer be followed.",430
we also overrule our prior decisions adopting the corpus delicti rule.,431
"accordingly, we will apply the same standard of review to all of appellant's sufficiency complaints.",432
"see smith v. babcock & wilcox constr. co., 913 s.w.2d 467, 468 (tex. 1995) (per curiam).",433
"in addition, nollmeyer explained that the county normally checks contractor status on the l&i website prior to awarding bids, but in this case, he admitted to checking only specialty's status.",434
"in concluding that in situations not subject to a specified exclusion, section 3051 supersedes section 1170.1, subdivision (c), trejo invoked the statutory maxim of construction, """"expressio unius est exclusio alterius, if exemptions are specified in a statute, [a court] may not imply additional exemptions unless there is a clear legislative intent to the contrary.""""",435
"346 n.w.2d 128, 130 (minn.",436
"see ocga  5-6-48 (b) (""""where the questions presented have become moot"""" the appeal """"shall be dismissed."""").",437
"halley v. birbiglia, 390 mass. 540, 545 (1983).",438
"but where a state statute criminalizes more conduct than the removable offense, it is overbroad and does not categorically make the offender removable.",439
a party may file with the supreme court a petition to review an adverse decision by the court of appeals.,440
"because we find the trial court erred in holding wife in contempt for refusing to cooperate with husband and his lender between the date of the approval until the closing of the loan, we reverse all damages resulting from that ruling.",441
"suppose a defendant misrepresented her travel history to convey she had met that requirement, when in fact she had not.",442
today that decision has been overruled.,443
we recede from lyles and williams to the extent that they declined to apply ree retrospectively to nonfinal cases.,444
"stowers had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his contempt in those proceedings, all the way through appeal to our court.",445
we disapprove herzog to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion.,446
" early, 330 ga. app. at 655 (1) (a) (punctuation omitted); accord hardy, 239 ga. app. at 596 (1).",447
"for the reasons stated, the rule of swain v. alabama is not to be followed in our courts and the cases applying it are disapproved to that extent.",448
a further reason for wiping the rule enunciated in united states v. feinberg off the books is that in practice it is no longer followed in this circuit when reviewing the denial of motions for acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence.,449
"we do not think the reasoning in elkins is persuasive, however, and to the extent that the holding in that case conflicts with this opinion, it is disapproved.",450
"we disapprove the conflicting battle and mccullers decisions on this point, as well as the conflicting decision in nelson v. state, 157 so.2d 96 (3d dca fla. 1963), cert. denied, 165 so.2d 178 (fla. 1964).",451
"and, to the extent dennis v. william penn life assur. co. of america, 714 f. supp. 1580 (w.d. okla. 1989), expresses a contrary interpretation of section 3609, it is disapproved.",452
we overruled two cases [t]o the extent ... [that they] rely on  143330 to permit the appeal of interlocutory orders of the alc or an administrative agency.,453
"it concluded that the tolling rule we announced in hughes v. mahaney higgins, 821 s.w.2d 154 (tex. 1991), was modified by our later decision in murphy v. campbell, 964 s.w.2d 265 (tex. 1997), and did not toll limitations in this case.",454
"and in so far as wright v. state, supra, is in conflict with the rule in stephens, it is overruled.",455
"to the extent that mardanlou suggests otherwise, we overrule it.",456
"to the extent pharr is inconsistent with this opinion, we disapprove of pharr.",457
"r.m. v. swearingen, 510 s.w.3d 630, 633 (tex. app.el paso 2016, no pet.); see tex. code crim. proc. ann. art. 7a.01(a)(1)-(2) (west, westlaw through 2017 1st c.s.).",458
"to the extent clay holds otherwise, it is hereby overruled.",459
"to the extent morning fresh farms can be read as holding that the mere presence of a building, without more, provides sufficient connection to meet the requirement that the product ""originate from the land's productivity,"" we decline to follow it.",460
"""""[a] prima facie case of good faith purpose is achieved by the mere allegation . . . that the information sought is for a proper purpose.""""",461
"in so holding, we must necessarily recede, in part, from our prior decision in orlando regional healthcare system, inc. v. alexander.",462
"see luton, 272 or app at 490-91.",463
"in so holding, we overrule newsome v. state, 197 miss. 797, 20 so.2d 708 (1945), in which this court held the dangerous character of the victim could not be proven by his prior acts of violence, although the defendant had knowledge thereof.",464
hence he is not entitled to relief on this ground either.,465
"citing """"the inflexible policy of the yavapai county attorney . . . to automatically seek capital punishment in every case where evidence of at least one statutory aggravating factor was present,"""" the dissent would have """"treat[ed] [the prosecutors'] failure to exercise . . . discretion as a non-statutory mitigating circumstance.""""",466
"cf. ammons v. okeechobee county, 710 so. 2d 641, 645 (fla. 4th dca 1998) (rejecting a claim of violation of substantive due process based on allegedly wrongful revocation of occupational license, as """"[t]he denial of such a license does not prevent a business owner from pursing a lawful occupation,"""" but """"merely prevents the business from operating at a particular location"""") appellants' allegations do not support a claim that they were prohibited from engaging in their chosen trade or profession or that they were unable to operate the club at another location.",467
"it is obviously inconsistent with our more recent cases, and is hereby overruled.",468
"in so doing, we realize that we are departing from hinckle v. state, del",469
"to the extent that lee suggests a hard-and-fast rule that there can be no claim for negligent display of merchandise, the suggestion conflicts with the general rule of landowner liability that we have described, and we disavow it.",470
"to the extent that state v. martin, 285 kan. 994, 179 p.3d 457,cert.",471
"the second implies that the matter is not constitutionally entrusted to another branch, but that for prudential reasons we should not decide it anyway, leading to the inevitable consequence that another branch of government will decide the constitutional limits of its own power.",472
"id., at 216.",473
crossroads also has offender rules consistent with the smoking policy.,474
"in conclusion, we approve the result in boecher and disapprove the third district's contrary opinions in carrera and adair.",475
"this rebuttable inference stands even when the [s]tate offers no evidence of how the defendant came to possess the vehicle in which drugs were found."""" (quoting lee v. state, 835 so. 2d 1177, 1179 (fla. 4th dca 2002))).",476
"in sum, we hold that peck did not refuse to perform the duties of his employment with the company when he declined to assume the different duties of a different position in a different location.",477
"spokeo does not hold otherwise; although it focuses on injury-in-fact, it reiterates that all three elements form the """"'irreducible constitutional minimum' of standing.""""",478
"we disapprove britton, supra, 156 cal.app.3d 689, sedillo, supra, 135 cal.app.3d 616, and palmquist, supra, 123 cal.app.3d 1, to the extent they suggest otherwise.",479
"less than two years ago, this court decided webb v. sowell, 387 s.c. 328, 692 s.e.2d 543 (2010), which held that ordering a non-custodial parent to pay college expenses violates equal protection, thus overruling thirty years of precedent flowing from risinger v. risinger.",480
"according to napa auto parts, the straws drove the vehicle """"for approximately six [] weeks and [] for between 500 to 600 miles prior to the accident with no incidents.""""",481
we therefore overrule mathis to the extent it adopted the presumption doctrine.,482
"because all presumptions are in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, the burden is on the party claiming that the law is unconstitutional to prove it.",483
"accordingly, we recede from that portion ofhenderson which conflicts with our ruling here, affirm washington's convictions, and certify conflict withcrawford.",484
the legislative history informs our interpretation of  1498.,485
"see commonwealth v. sadberry, 44 mass. app. ct. 934, 936 (1998) (gun's location near defendant in car was proper consideration on question of dominion and control).",486
"we conclude, as did jacobs, that webb changes the analysis, and that besendorfer should no longer be followed.",487
"on appeal, the government argues that: """"[t]he specification contains a detailed description of a best mode embodiment of the invention with every reference to power being expressed in the [i]mperial units of 'horsepower' or 'hp,'"""" cross-appellant's br. 55 (footnote omitted); see '032 patent col.",488
"likewise, we have relied on the framework of that section in recognizing the principle that even when an actor's conduct does not create a risk of physical harm, the actor may still owe an affirmative duty of care based on a special relationship.",489
"under tennessee rule of evidence 801, """"'hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.""""",490
 id.  2679(d)(5).,491
"to the extent that copper liquor inc. v. adolph coors co., 684 f.2d 1087 (5th cir. 1982), modified on other grounds en banc, 701 f.2d 542 (5th cir. 1983), held otherwise, it is overruled.",492
"therefore, the position previously stated in watson v. state, supra, and robinson v. state, supra, is hereby, overruled.",493
"hudson, justice.",494
"to the extent reasoning in in re rachael c., supra, 235 cal.app.3d 1445, implies the contrary, it is disapproved.",495
"see crowell constructors, inc. v. state ex rel. cobey, 328 n.c. 563, 563-64, 402 s.e.2d 407, 408 (1991); mckinney v. duncan, ___ n.c. app. ___, ___, 808 s.e.2d 509, 512 (2017) (""""the order is devoid of any stamp-file or other marking necessary to indicate a filing date, and therefore it was not entered.",496
the court may instruct jurors regarding victim impact evidence or other sections of the final instructions (#7.11) as part of the preliminary instruction.,497
"to the extent the motions to dismiss raised the issue, it is apparent plaintiffs' subsequent summary judgment motion explicitly waived and abandoned this issue.",498
"although white testified that gladys herself called him to discuss the preparation of her 2008 will, clara disputed whether her mother could have looked up the number in the phone book. according to clara, gladys's eyesight had become so poor that gladys had difficulty reading or even seeing a glass of water in front of her. clara further testified that gladys needed help dialing phone numbers and would ask clara to dial the numbers for her. 33.",499
writ denied on the showing made.,500
"third, the district court's sanction was not an abuse of discretion.",501
"thus, the texas supreme court held that the reports were deficient because they did not adequately show a causal relationship.",502
"id.; see also carey v. piphus, 435 u.s. 247, 248 (1978) (holding that section 1983 plaintiffs were """"entitled to recover only nominal damages"""" """"in the absence of proof of actual injury."""").  ",503
"in that regard, the legislature expressly declared: ""it is the intent of this legislation to provide that all objections to the form and substance of the moving and opposing papers shall be first made in the trial court and not on appeal by the parties or by the appellate court and to expressly overrule the rules stated in witchell v. dekorne [(1986)] 179 [cal.app.3d] 965 [ 225 cal.rptr. 176] and zuckerman v. pacific savings bank.",504
"however, to the extent that that case is in conflict with our present holding, it is hereby overruled.",505
i also look to the more recent case of,506
"(city of industry v. gordon (1972) 29 cal.app.3d 90, 94; see also county of los angeles v. ortiz (1971) 6 cal.3d 141, 148.)",507
"we disapprove harris, karcher, and philips to the extent they are in conflict with this decision.",508
"in addition, we overrule our prior precedent in ferreira v. sec'y for the dep't of corr., 183 fed.appx. 885 (11th cir.2006) and rainey v. sec'y for the dep't of corr., 443 f.3d 1323 (11th cir.2006), to the extent they are inconsistent with the supreme court's holding in burton v. stewart,",509
"whether to grant an award under  97-88.1,",510
"the court of criminal appeals resolved the certified question by holding that the badt fee statute violates """"due process principles.""""",511
"on reconsideration in light of feola, newson and other recent opinions, we are convinced that the holdings in findley and baltrunas requiring knowledge of the jurisdictional facts cannot be sustained and should be overruled.",512
"as i explained previously in this opinion, the majority opinion relies on the exercise of its supervisory authority and, to the extent it may be interpreted as holding contrary to the majority opinion, overrules chyung v. chyung, supra, 86 conn.app. at 665, 862 a.2d 374, the case on which the appellate court relied.",513
"however, in view of our more recent decisions cited above, it is our opinion that any language in spence inconsistent with such decisions should be overruled, and we so hold.",514
we do not reinstate other portions of davis that have been subsequently overruled.,515
"in that vein, the sharp court reexamined the five-part test from bird , ultimately disapproving of the third part of the test requiring that the hearsay statement must have been made outside the presence of the accused.",516
lapeyrouse and terry are overruled to the extent that they differ from the views expressed in this opinion.,517
"therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we approve the fifth district's decision in this case and disapprove the second district's decision in estrada to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.",518
"the result of this appeal, however, has caused me to revisit the court's decision in alvear i. see ex parte alvear, 524 s.w.3d 261 (tex. app.waco 2016, no pet.).",519
on this point casey overruled the holdings in two cases because they undervalued the state's interest in potential life.,520
"seepersad's criminal conviction limits our jurisdiction to constitutional claims and colorable questions of law, 8 u.s.c.  1252(a)(2)(c), (d), for which our review is de novo, pierre v. holder, 588 f.3d 767, 772 (2d cir. 2009).",521
"state v. carrawell, 481 s.w.3d 833, 837 (mo.banc 2016).",522
"thus, to the extent that the decisions of this court in carney v. moody, supra and in fireman's fund ins. v. government emp. ins., ky., 635 s.w.2d 475 (1982), are in conflict with our decision in this case, they are overruled.",523
". . . the connection between the cause of death and the burglary . . . must involve more than just their occurrence at the same time and place.""""",524
"to the extent that dorgan v. dorgan, 811 so.2d 552 (ala.civ.app. 2001), held to the contrary by indicating that a trial court's determination of a parent's underemployment requires a written finding that application of the child-support guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate, its holding is inconsistent with rule 32(b)(5), ala. r. jud. admin., and dorgan is hereby overruled to that extent.",525
"ultimately, the court found the probative value of the other-crimes evidence outweighed the prejudicial impact.",526
"see also the progeny of the williams decisions, likewise overruled as to this holding: state v. fisher, 362 so.2d 553 (la. 1978); state v. proctor, 354 so.2d 488 (la. 1977); state v. dickerson.",527
"shannon v. commonwealth, supra, at 548-51 (shannon, part i) readdressed this reasonable/unreasonable belief analysis, overruled baker and gray, and reinstated blake v. commonwealth.",528
we therefore overrule clouthier to the extent that it identified a single deliberate indifference standard for all  1983 claims and to the extent that it required a plaintiff to prove an individual defendant's subjective intent to punish in the context of a pretrial detainee's failure-to-protect claim.,529
we now apply these principles of appellate review for the sufficiency of evidence for the armed robbery in this case.,530
the cases set forth in footnote 1 are overruled.,531
father contends that there was substantial evidence presented regarding the parties' incomes that would have enabled the trial court to make a determination regarding child support.,532
"because jones/walker relates only to sufficiency of the evidence, we hereby disavow the language holding otherwise in sandoval.",533
we reverse the duncan cases to the extent that they hold that pending motions to suppress do not become preliminary pleas after prosecution has been instituted.,534
we therefore reverse the order denying the motion to suppress and recede from any language in moskowitz which could be interpreted contrary to our holding in this case.,535
we here merely recede from prior cases in order to establish a rule which we are convinced will be productive of results more nearly consonant with the demands of justice and the dictates of ethics and morality.,536
the intention of the parties or their own beliefs as to what state is the child's home state are irrelevant.,537
"we therefore overrule j.w.j. v. p.k.r., supra, and reaffirm the holdings in m. u., supra, and heller.",538
"to the extent that the decision in succession of suggs, supra, is contrary to the view expressed herein, it is expressly overruled.",539
"in day v. united states, supra, 390 a.2d at 970, which was decided more than 2 years before the pretrial appeal in this case, we disapproved such inaction.",540
"he appealed,   and in united states v. ferguson, 831 f.3d 850 (7th cir. 2016), we vacated his sentence and remanded the case to a new judge, who imposed a 35-year sentence.",541
"the contrary conclusion of some lower courts rests on the following logic: the term ""information"" in subparagraph (b) must be read in tandem with the term ""information"" in sub-paragraph (a), and the term ""information"" in subparagraph (a) refers to the information on which the publicly disclosed allegations are based.",542
"to this extent, the majority opinion in cooper is in error and is overruled.",543
thus the reasoning of the court of appeals in trulock was unsound.,544
we therefore overrule the barker decision and adopt the economic interest rule as the test for determining the tax treatment of income derived from hard mineral extraction agreements.,545
"having considered the present appeal in banc in order to clarify our precedents with respect to the scope of the government's navigational servitude, we now reverse the judgment of the claims court, overrule those portions of pitman and ballam which are inconsistent with the following opinion, and remand this case for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.",546
kopera testified for the state at mcghie's trial.,547
"we also disapprove thompson, moorer, and burrell to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.",548
we now overrule st. john's interpretation and affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.,549
"as previously noted, we overrule in re hayes, supra, 70 cal.2d 604, 75 cal.rptr. 790, 451 p.2d 430, and disapprove people v. harrison, supra, 1 cal.app.3d 115, 81 cal.rptr. 396.",550
"we therefore disapprove of the holding to the contrary in san juan 1990-a, l.p. v. meridian oil inc.",551
"see garrett v. garrett, 111 nev. 972, 973-74, 899 p.2d 1112, 1113-14 (1995) (explaining that the statutory cap is the amount that is established by the nrs 125b.070 formula and serves as the starting point from which the court must begin its calculations when allowing any deviations).",552
"ordinarily, dismissal for failure to state a claim is without prejudice, and the court has discretion to permit a party to amend the pleading to allege additional facts in an effort to state a claim.",553
"further, in adler v dormio, 309 mich app 702, 708; 872 nw2d 721 (2015), this court set forth the legal principles that govern the trial court's decision concerning whether relief from judgment is appropriate pursuant to mcr 2.612(c)(1)(f):",554
"to the extent that our decision in united states v. albertini, 830 f.2d 985 (9th cir. 1987), conflicts with rodgers, we overrule albertini.",555
we conclude that the neff and ward holdings are inconsistent with the limitations on the maintenance and cure remedy imposed by the supreme court and must be overruled to the extent of such inconsistency.,556
"16 u.s.c.  1532(6), (20).",557
"a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the courtif the trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the court does not have authority to consider the matter.",558
we conclude that the reasons for overruling plair and its progeny are sufficiently weighty.,559
"accordingly, we approve in part and quash in part the district court's decision in this case; we disapprove liu v. mandina, 396 so.2d 1155 (fla. 4th dca 1981); and we direct that this cause be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.",560
"to the extent the court of appeals decision in blossom chevrolet holds otherwise, it is disapproved.",561
"in sum, we found the court's sentence substantively unreasonable in morgan because the court considered impermissible factors and failed to consider an important factor: general deterrence.",562
"id.; see also state v. gabert, 152 vt. 83, 85, 564 a.2d 1356, 1358 (1989) (quoting kasper, 145 vt. at 120, 483 a.2d at 610 for proposition that """"the record must reveal that the elements of each offense were explained to the defendant"""").",563
we disapprove of this language in l.c.,564
"accordingly, we disapprove huang to the extent it is inconsistent with the views set out in this opinion.",565
"while in many cases the calculation may, as a matter of fact, run from the date the complaint was filed (because the person making service received the summons and complaint on the same day) or run from expiration of the statute of limitation (because the complaint was filed on the last day of the limitation period and the complaint and summons was received by the person making service on the same day), to the extent these cases misstate the proper rule to be applied generally, they must be overruled.",566
"in its opinion in sanchez-gomez, the supreme court rejected the concept that the previously shackled defendants had shown a sufficient stake in the outcome to avoid mootness because they """"sought relief from the restraint policy not merely for themselves, but for all in-custody defendants in the district.""""",567
"see in re mission consol. indep. sch. dist., 990 s.w.2d 459, 461 (tex. app.corpus christi 1999, orig. proceeding [mand.",568
"however, we disapprove angelus to the extent that it holds section 733.212(3) does not bar objections that a personal representative was never qualified to serve.",569
"for the reasons set forth above, we now overrule skov, o'neal and pettigrew.",570
this defendant was   hands-on.,571
"in that case, at least two other property owners had an interest in the purported easement, because their properties abutted the easement, but were not named in the suit.",572
the opening statement was based on what the prosecutor intended to prove by the evidence.,573
we then explain why we conclude that smothers clearly erred in tying the remedy clause to the common law in 1857 and should be overruled.,574
"on this record, the trial court had no reason to know defendants objected to the limitation imposed by its ruling, and the court had no opportunity to prevent or correct the purported misconduct that defendants assert now on appeal.",575
the circumstances here are similar.,576
id.  4 cmt.,577
"in conclusion, we have overruled mcginn and held that the trial court should inform the jury of the effect of apportioning 50% or more of the negligence to the plaintiff.",578
"the matter is remanded to the district for an award of a precise and certain amount of damages and specific declaratory judgment relief, without reference to an extrinsic source.",579
"defendant is unable to demonstrate that he was prejudiced as a result of the trial court's alleged error because the record reveals that defendant's retained counsel was added as cocounsel on the first day of his trial, indicating defendant was able to move forward with counsel of his choice.",580
"reilly, judge  ramsey county district courtfile no. 62-cr-17-1420  lori swanson, attorney general, st. paul, minnesota; and  john choi, ramsey county attorney, thomas r. ragatz, assistant county attorney, st. paul, minnesota (for respondent)  cathryn middlebrook, chief appellate public defender, john donovan, assistant public defender, st. paul, minnesota (for appellant)  considered and decided by bjorkman, presiding judge; larkin, judge; and reilly, judge.",581
"##note: armistead v. state personnel bd. is the case at bar, reversed.",582
"at the time the trial court entered its final judgment of dismissal in march 2016, the case law in this area was arguably in a state of flux, but that is no longer the situation.",583
"therefore, the language in crawford that is in conflict with our holding here is expressly disapproved.",584
"we, therefore, overrule that portion of smith v. simpson that limits the act's definition of a pedestrian.",585
"gallagher was actually a subcontractor with dyntek, which was a contractor with nychh.",586
"the administrator must then review the petition within 60 days and object if the petitioner """"demonstrates"""" a permit applicant's noncompliance with caa requirements. nypirg, 321 f.3d at 333; 42 u.s.c.  7661d(b)(2).",587
the issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (seecplr 5501[a][1]).,588
another case in which a new rule was created by overruling precedent is state v. ikezawa.,589
"nor did ms. shahin offer any authority interpreting rule 59(e), or any legal argument to persuade this court that the motion for reconsideration was incorrectly decided.",590
"we therefore overrule tomco and el farra on this point, and hold that a district court, when presented with a  10(j) petition, need not determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed.",591
"because of this, and because the johnson remedy also independently relied on coram nobis principles, we deem it inappropriate to continue to rely on the johnson remedy, and conclude that the restoration of a denied direct appeal through resentencing to establish a new appeal time frame is no longer feasible.",592
"we now over-rule barnes, french, and tucker to the extent that they conflict with the requirements and provisions of the mississippi rules of civil procedure and subsequent decisions of this court.",593
"accordingly, we approve the third district's decision in this case and disapprove gill to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion.",594
"of course, public corporations are not invariably regarded as units of the government for purposes of the government speech doctrine.",595
"dr. hunter used the minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2 to diagnose stacie with """"major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate.""""",596
"we recede from columbia casualty co. v. zimmerman, 62 so.2d 338 (fla. 1952), and the cases which relied upon it to the extent that the columbia casualty decision is in conflict with our answer to the certified question.",597
"those narrow circumstances, however, only include an action for mandamus to compel a court's performance or nonperformance of a ministerial or clerical act, see green v. ingrassia, 665 n.y.s.2d 577, 577 (2d dep't 1997), or a prohibition action to restrain a judicial officer from acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.",598
a trial court should grant the state's motion for a dismissal if the request meets the good cause and open court requirements of crim.r. 48(a).,599
the court then denied both of mr. denzmore's motions.,600
"for the reasons set forth below, we quash the fourth district's decision in alcorn because the fourth district incorrectly analyzed the prejudice prong, but we also disapprove the conflict cases revell and lewis because their analysis is inconsistent with the united states supreme court's decisions in frye and lafler.",601
"""""'this result only follows, however, if the misrepresentation relates to the very nature of the proposed contract itself and not merely to one of its nonessential terms.'"""" brumley, 945 n.e.2d at 779 (quoting restatement (second) of contracts  163 (1981)).",602
"this presumption, however, is not conclusive, and any statement to the contrary in lahn v. structural pest control board, 135 cal.app.2d 289 [ 287 p.2d 17], and any inferences to the contrary in any other case or cases are disapproved.",603
"after careful consideration, we have decided to resolve this conflict by receding from g.d.w. and gainer to the extent they hold that an improper transfer order renders all proceedings following such an order null and void.",604
"there was no evidence that any worker had experienced any problems with the safety policy as practiced on the bargei.e., either chocking or chaining.",605
"the fact that plaintiff had present, albeit inconvenient, access to his land at the time of trial was of no effect in the evans decision, and insofar as curtman is inconsistent therewith, it must be overruled.",606
"in other words, in lieu of trapping an unwary defendant, see tr. of oral arg. 29, i would rank the clerk's transmission of the amended judgment to the court of appeals as an adequate substitute for a second notice of appeal.",607
"nevertheless, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's burden does not require that all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense be negated.",608
"schmidt v. skolas, 770 f.3d 241, 248 (3d cir. 2014).",609
"see also williams v. state, 268 ga. 488, 490 (491 se2d 377) (1997).",610
"we think the case is distinguishable on the facts but to the extent that it holds, if it does, that written findings of fact are not required of administrative agencies, it is hereby overruled.",611
"and although thompson arguably expressed a desire to have fewer pregnant subordinates, she didn't suggest that fassbender's pregnancy somehow made her unqualified for her position.",612
"tellingly, among her original claims against respondents were claims for fraud and nondisclosure that substantially overlap with those she seeks to assert here.",613
"but abatie held that district courts may take additional evidence whenever ""[procedural] irregularities have prevented full development of the administrative record,"" abatie, 458 f.3d at 973, and to the extent that our earlier cases conflict with abatie, a later en banc decision, those cases are no longer good law.",614
"and, porter's cited authority, walton gen. contractors, inc. v. chicago forming, inc., 111 f.3d 1376, 1385 (8th cir. 1997) is inapposite.",615
"aekins, 447 s.w.3d at 278; vick v. state, 991 s.w.2d 830, 833 (tex. crim. app. 1999).",616
"winter v. wolnitzek, 834 f.3d 681, 691 (6th cir. 2016) (quoting webster's third new international dictionary 749 (3d ed. 2002)).",617
"we disagree that these considerations establish an injury in fact to the tippinses, i.e., a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent and not merely hypothetical.",618
"see minn. r. evid. 801(d)(1)(b) (""""a statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is . . . consistent with the declarant's testimony and helpful to the trier of fact in  evaluating the declarant's credibility as a witness."""").",619
and it would enable state courts to blame the unpopular death-sentence reprieve of the most horrible criminals upon the federal constitution when it is in fact their own doing.,620
"frazee remains good law, and howell's statement to the contrary should no longer be followed.",621
"loudermill, 470 u.s. at 546.",622
"no other third floor workers, who also worked without breathing apparatus, complained of respiratory symptoms.",623
"to the extent jensen suggests an inadvertent delay is per se unreasonable, it is disapproved.",624
id. a judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court's conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.,625
the court today provides no assurance that plea deals negotiated in good faith with guilty defendants will remain final.,626
"insofar as this court's decision in lamb v. page, 482 p.2d 615 (okla.",627
"see montgomery v. louisiana, 577 u.s. ,   , 136 s.ct. 718, 737738, 193 l.ed.2d 599 (2016) (scalia, j., dissenting) (recounting history).",628
"applying the holdings in brown and green in light of caudillo, the facts of this case do not satisfy the simple kidnapping asportation standard.",629
"that is because """"if counsel has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation to prepare for sentencing, then he cannot possibly be said to have made a reasonable decision as to what to present at sentencing.""""",630
"to the extent that they state that the appropriate standard is the preponderance standard, britt, buness, j.w., and todd are disapproved of.",631
"to the extent the following cases, and any others, are inconsistent with this holding, they are hereby overruled:",632
"to the extent that our holding on this point overrules this court's prior analyses of the exhaustion requirement in tinsley v. united parcel service, 635 f.2d 1288 (7th cir. 1980), vacated and remanded, 452 u.s. 934, 101 s.ct. 3072, 69 l.ed.2d 948 (1981); baldini v. local 1095, uaw, 581 f.2d 145 (7th cir. 1978); battle v. clark equip. mfg. co., 579 f.2d 1338 (7th cir. 1978); harrison v. chrysler corp., 558 f.2d 1273 (7th cir. 1977); and newgent v. modine mfg. co., 495 f.2d 919 (7th cir. 1974), this result is mandated by clayton.",633
"with these constitutional principles in mind, it is clear the minimal dictates of due process have been satisfied in this case.",634
"insofar as any language in clarke v. united states, d.c.mun.app., 160 a.2d 97 (1960) or in yankovitz v. united states, d.c.mun.app., 182 a.2d 889 (1962), could be construed to establish a local community standard or to relieve the government of its duty to prove prevailing community standards, it is overruled.",635
"the majority overrules the recent decision of ex parte trisler, 605 s.w.2d 619 (tex.cr.app. 1980), and the long line of decisions it represents, without regard to the doctrine of stare decisis.",636
"we disapprove of people v. aris, supra, 215 cal.app.3d 1178, and people v. day, supra, 2 cal.app.4th 405, to the extent they are inconsistent with this conclusion.",637
that case is hereby overruled.,638
the court stated that failure to cure the deficiencies identified in its order would result in dismissal with prejudice.,639
"writ denied on the showing made in part and denied in part. relator failed to include a copy of the bill of information, the district court's ruling, the state's answer, if any, the boykin transcript, and any other documents from the district court record that might support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.",640
"we have concluded that it is erroneous and to the extent that sutton v. commonwealth, supra, indicates that a person may be prosecuted both for theft and knowingly receiving the same stolen article, it is overruled.",641
"defense counsel objected on the ground that the second-degree depraved heart murder instruction was more appropriate in cases in which the state had charged multiple levels of homicide, e.g., murder and manslaughter.",642
lack of a sua sponte self-defense instruction.,643
"however, for the reasons already stated, appellate courts should look to the evidence presented at the consolidation or severance hearing, and to the extent that hoyt can be read to permit appellate review of severance issues based only upon the offenses actually elected at the close of the evidence, it is overruled.",644
the prosecutor effectively withdrew the question.,645
we disapprove of those cases in which courts of appeals have held differently.,646
"see id.; see also meyer v. jones, 696 n.w.2d 611, 614 (iowa 2005) (""""when a state action threatens to deprive a person of a protected liberty or property interest, a person is entitled to procedural due process.""""). procedural due process requires notice and the opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.",647
##note: people v. davis was affirmed not overruled.,648
"insofar as our case of dean v. dean, supra, is contrary to the holding in this case, it is overruled.",649
"however, we overrule the vitale case insofar as it is in conflict with our reasoning herein.",650
"approximately one hour after beginning deliberations, the jury asked the following question: """"which one of proof need only one to be true?""""",651
"##people v. smith is reversed, not overruled (same line of cases).",652
"chavers, 991 s.w.2d at 460",653
"to the extent that either naifeh or dimauro might be construed to stand for the proposition that the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider appeals from refusal by the board to grant a medical license, those opinions are expressly overruled.",654
a hypothetically correct charge would also include an instruction on the law of parties.,655
this court overrules its holding in red to the extent that decision may be construed as authority for the proposition that exempt income should be excluded from disposable income regardless of whether the time limitation of  1325(b)(1)(b) or the provisions of  1325(b)(2) apply.,656
"see id. (""""the secretary had authority to promulgate regulations to carry out these powers, . . . and he did so in 27 c.f.r. part 55. . . . the regulations authorized '[a]ny atf officer' to 'inspect the site of any accident or fire in which there is reason to believe that explosive materials were involved.'""""",657
""""" this """"expansive statutory language"""" has been interpreted to require the juvenile court """" 'to consider the totality of the circumstances of the child and his or her sibling in determining whether the child is at substantial risk of harm, within the meaning of any of the subdivisions enumerated in [section 300,] subdivision (j).' """" (in re ashley b. (2011) 202 cal.app.4th 968, 982-983.)",658
"to the extent that plant economy, inc. v. mirror insulation co., supra, holds otherwise that case is overruled.",659
"8 u.s.c.  1357(a)(4); cf. sessions v. dimaya, 138 s. ct. 1204, 1212-13 (2018) (plurality opinion) (explaining that removal proceedings in some ways resemble criminal actions); mateo v. att'y gen., 870 f.3d 228, 232 (3d cir. 2017) (same).",660
"nenno is overruled to the extent it decides article 38.22, section 6, applies only to custodial statements.",661
"to the extent that our ruling may conflict with state v. becker, 364 mo. 1079, 272 s.w.2d 283, that case should no longer be followed.",662
"texas osage co-operative royalty pool v. sullivan, tex.civ.app., 93 s.w.2d 566, an opinion of this court, is not in point on the facts, but statements in that opinion conflicting with our own conclusion, if any there be, are overruled to the extent of the conflict.",663
"as stated above, this issue was properly preserved for appeal, and thus, we must determine whether the trial court erred by overruling",664
"to the extent that mcsheridan holds section 502(b)(6) to be a limit on tort claims other than those based on lost rent, rent-like payments or other damages directly arising from a tenant's failure to complete a lease term, it is overruled.",665
"gaines, 292 f.3d at 1224.",666
diaz-diaz contends that the government failed to prove venue and that he was prejudiced by the district court's rejection of his proposed jury instruction on venue.,667
"because of our holding here, we recede from our prior decisions on this issue to the extent that they do not conform to the procedure outlined herein.",668
"because here, as in workman and in contrast to ex parte new york, the defendant was an entity generally within the jurisdiction of the district court, ex parte new york is inapposite, and workman compels the conclusion that the county is unprotected by sovereign immunity.",669
"lopez also argues that, as a procedural matter, the bia should have remanded the case so the ij could consider his request for cancellation in light of the new evidence.",670
"{19} in state v. underwood, 124 ohio st.3d 365, 2010-ohio-1, 922 n.e.2d 923, the ohio supreme court held that """"[a] sentence is 'authorized by law' and is not appealable within the meaning of r.c. 2953.08(d)(1) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.""""",671
1976) (internal   quotation marks omitted).,672
"this rule has received the strictest scrutiny and withstood repeated attacks; but the time has come, and we now abolish the cobb standard for appellate review of orders granting new trials on the sole ground that the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and we overrule that line of cases following the cobb standard.",673
"see pearson v. wendell, 2015 me 136,  45, 47, 125 a.3d 1149.",674
the issue is not preserved for our review.,675
"see id., at 134135, 75 s.ct. 623.",676
the parties agree that the issue in this case requires us to determine the applicable unit of prosecution.,677
"see 6th cir. (""""published panel opinions are binding on later panels.",678
defendant raises a series of challenges to california's death penalty statute on grounds that we have repeatedly rejected.,679
"to the extent that gentry is inconsistent with this rule, we overrule it.",680
"to the extent mccoy and mccracken implied that the only right to counsel under the act was a statutory one, they are hereby modified.",681
"indeed, the legislature was aware that certain sensitive material must be carefully reviewed and anticipated that some of the information under review may never reach the public's eyes. statement to third official copy reprint of a. 1030 12 (""""[n.j.s.a. 10:4-13] requires that whenever a public body seeks to meet in private it must first pass a resolution . . . [that] must also state the general nature of the matters to be discussed and approximately when, if ever, the matters discussed can be made public.""""",682
he alleges only that counsel was tardy in passing on the revised plea offer.,683
"we have jurisdiction, article v, section 3(b)(3), florida constitution, and we approve in part and quash in part the decision of the fourth district.",684
the city decided that the training would include the milwaukee police citizen academy and the ride along with both of these training components being subject to the recommendations of the board's executive director.,685
"based on a comparison between inmates inside and outside disciplinary segregation, the state's actions in placing him there for 30 days did not work a major disruption in his environment.",686
the trial court's finding is neither defendant's stated salary amount nor the amount to which defendant testified at trial.,687
"the officers took a """"small .22 pistol,"""" which was loaded and had a shell in the chamber, from the right pocket of his jacket.",688
"filed, which appears to hold to the contrary, is hereby overruled.",689
"on reviewing the relevant statutory and case law, however, we are compelled to revisit our previous interpretation.",690
"in addition, cancel challenges his composite sentence for the three counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor: 60 years' imprisonment with 20 years suspended (i.e., 40 years to serve).",691
"see, e.g., r.j. griffin & co. v. beach club ii homeowners ass'n, 384 f.3d 157, 160-61 (4th cir. 2004) (""""in the context of arbitration, the doctrine [of equitable estoppel] applies when one party attempts 'to hold [another party] to the terms of [an] agreement' while simultaneously trying to avoid the agreement's arbitration clause.""""",692
the superior court reasoned that four justices in l.b.m. would have permitted the gal to represent the child in the tpr hearing when the child's best interests and legal interests did not conflict.,693
we reverse and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.,694
"to the extent they are to the contrary, wright v. state ex rel. patchin, 994 s.w.2d 100 (mo.app. 1999), and state ex rel. mather v. carnes, 551 s.w.2d 272 (mo.app. 1977), are overruled.",695
"based on our holding today, we disapprove the contrary holding in texas department of public safety v. levinson.",696
"silbernagel v. silbernagel , 2011 nd 140,  11, 800 n.w.2d 320. """"a party may not collaterally attack a final decision, that was not appealed, in subsequent proceedings.""""",697
"for h0031 ha claims, notwithstanding that """"tcc did not bill these claims to medicaid.""""",698
"in people v king, 384 mich 310, 312-313; 181 nw2d 916 (1970), the supreme court did not find it unduly suggestive when, after the witness made his identification, it was indicated to him that he had identified the individual whom the police suspected.",699
a subsequent search of the vehicle revealed the presence of an additional syringe that had been hidden inside a purse located on the passenger side of the vehicle.,700
##note: in re chavez was reversed not overruled.,701
"we hold that w.s. 35-10-205 does not grant counties the authority to enact more stringent regulations of the use, sale and possession of fireworks, and we overrule our decisions in haddenham ii and gueke to the extent those decisions hold to the contrary.",702
"inasmuch as the supreme court of the united states has directly held that a geographical term which was descriptive of the place where the articles were manufactured was not registrable even though it had acquired a secondary meaning, we must follow our decision in the overhead door case, supra, which is in harmony with the views of the supreme court, and in so far as the opinion in the case of in re plymouth motor corporation, supra, expresses a contrary view, it must be considered as overruled.",703
"edwards v. firemen's retirement system of st. louis, mo.app., 410 s.w.2d 560; mitchell v. city of springfield, mo. app., 410 s.w.2d 585; and heusmann v. priest, mo.app., 366 s.w.2d 42, are disapproved insofar as they hold that in this situation a reviewing court may not weigh the evidence and make its own findings of fact.",704
"affirmed in part and remanded  schellhas, judge ramsey county district courtfile no. 62-cr-16-7992 lori swanson, attorney general, st. paul, minnesota; and john j. choi, ramsey county attorney, peter r. marker, assistant county attorney, st. paul, minnesota (for respondent) cathryn middlebrook, chief appellate public defender, steven p. russett, assistant public defender, st. paul, minnesota (for appellant) considered and decided by ross, presiding judge; schellhas, judge; and kirk, judge.",705
the court's decision today overrules a fundamental holding in conkle.,706
"at the january 29, 2014 wcj coholan hearing, claimant identified """"records from [university of pittsburgh medical center (]upmc[)] in june and july of 2012."""" r.r. at 144a.",707
"{ 19} in support of his argument, runions cites the ohio supreme court case of fabe. fabe, however, was a declaratory judgment seeking an interpretation of r.c. 3905.01(b) and 3905.04.",708
"to the extent it is contrary to this opinion, george pepperdine foundation v. pepperdine, 126 cal.app.2d 154 [ 271 p.2d 600], is disapproved.",709
"this court has previously considered and rejected this exact claim in hall v. state, 820 so.2d 113 (ala.crim.app.1999), stating: use of the word you, without more, in relationship to a jury charge on mitigating evidence does not imply that the finding of a mitigating circumstance must be unanimous.",710
"state v. reyes, 744 n.w.2d 95, 101 (iowa 2008) (quoting united states v. lovasco, 431 u.s. 783, 790 (1977)).",711
"(jeske v. maxim healthcare servs., inc. (e.d. cal. 2012) 2012 u.s. dist. lexis 2963, at p. 37 [plaintiff """"need not have suffered all paga violations for which she seeks to pursue civil penalties.""""];",712
"insofar as they would prevent a trial judge from acting in an appealed case on any matter not reviewable under the appeal and granting any proper relief (including forma pauperis authority if entitlement is established), creel v. creel and kliebert v. kliebert are now overruled.",713
the same standard applies when a defendant fails to raise a timely objection under brady.,714
"the jury reasonably could have inferred that appellant purchased the rugs, obtained the department number and uline number from the receipt, returned the rugs, wrote the department number and uline number from the original rugs on inferior rugs that did not belong to the chain store, and then presented the inferior rugs and a receipt that did not pertain to those two rugs to the second store, seeking a refund.",715
"austero v. national cas. co. (1978) 84 cal.app.3d 1, 24-25 [ 148 cal.rptr. 653], is disapproved.",716
"this proposal ignores the fact that the university tried, and failed, to increase diversity through enhanced consideration of socioeconomic and other factors.",717
"our decision in hudson v. blanchard, supra, more narrowly interpreting the waiver clause of subsection 6, 12 o.s. 1961  385[ 12-385], is overruled.",718
"for that reason, it is more consistent with mcdonnell douglas than matthews, which we now overrule.",719
"accordingly, we overrule state v. layne, 623 s.w.2d 629 (tenn.",720
"183, 205 (1810) (""""[a] statute is to be so construed, that no clause, sentence or word shall be void, superfluous, or insignificant."""").",721
"accordingly, we overrule zepeda v. bulleri,",722
"accordingly, and to the extent it differs from the holding herein, duncan v. beck is overruled.",723
"we overrule people v. johnson (1989) 47 cal.3d 1194, 255 cal.rptr. 569, 767 p.2d 1047 to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.",724
the situation here was different.,725
a habeas petition is not a second appeal.,726
although we consider that the issue whether vrns are negotiable instruments is not controlled by either dillard or lexington in the interest of clarity we disapprove of the holdings in dillard and lexington to the extent they may be construed to conflict with our holding today.,727
"but here, the district court denied leave to amend based on futility.",728
"paul points out that the vocational expert concluded that lauren was very professional and bright and is capable of earning a salary of up to $40,000.",729
"however, i now agree with the decision of the majority to overrule lewis.",730
ramirez has shown that reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court erred in dismissing his  2255 motion without prejudice as premature based on a finding that he had a pending direct appeal.,731
"a more in-depth summary of the factual history underlying this lawsuit can be found in hunter v. town of mocksville, 789 f.3d 389 (4th cir. 2015), our earlier opinion in this case.",732
"holds otherwise, it is hereby overruled.",733
"we disapprove sarasota county, jenkins, and relyea to the extent they conflict with the decision here.",734
"(miratti's inc., supra, 132 nlrb at p. 701.)",735
"the record also reflects that in a separate cause number, and prior to his robbery trial, parker pleaded guilty to the crime of receiving stolen property.",736
"jackson, 177 so. 3d at 932 (quoting inmin v. state, 668 so. 2d 152, 155 (ala. crim. app. 1995), citing in turn bamberg v. state, 611 so. 2d 450, 452 (ala. crim. app. 1992)).",737
we overrule it.,738
all judges have expressed agreement with the conclusions herein respecting overruling long.,739
"at a december 14, 2015 hearing on the parties' motions and exceptions, the trial court maintained the exception of res judicata as to all claims for rescission, avoidance, or nullity of the option agreement, with the caveat that it denied the exception as it related to any claims of termination, reformation, or any other claims not dismissed by the trial court or this court.",740
"""""if a statute is susceptible of more than one meaning, one of which is constitutional and the other not, we interpret the statute as being consistent with the constitution.""""",741
"as noted in vesely v. sager, supra, most of the recent decisions have rejected the no-proximate-cause rubric.",742
no further acknowledgment of hampton's effect on those cases needs to be recited hereafter.,743
"given that petitioner's due process rights were violated and that this situation is comparable to the outright denial of the constitutional right to call witnesses, expungement is the proper remedy (see matter of doleman v prack, 145   ad3d at 1290-1291; cf. matter of texeira v fischer, 26 ny3d at 234-235).",744
"to the extent that kenney, supra, requires the defendant to plead the absence of actual malice, it is overruled",745
"in other words, villodas-rosario's miscarriage-of-justice claim attempts to reargue the plea colloquy error that we have already addressed.",746
"recently, this court receded from hallman to the extent that we held that all newly discovered evidence claims should now be brought in a motion pursuant to florida rule of criminal procedure 3.850 and that such claims would not be cognizable in an application for writ of error coram nobis unless the defendant was not in custody.",747
"cases suggesting the contrary are, to that extent, overruled.",748
"to the extent mattias and subsequent cases suggest otherwise, we disavow them.",749
"to the extent that the language in johnson supports the plaintiff's position, we now expressly disavow any suggestion that the decision of the statewide bar counsel not to refer a grievance complaint to a screening panel pursuant to  232(a)(2) is essentially unreviewable.",750
"we disapprove the statements in the opinion on rehearing in day that implied the contrary, and (like the author of those statements) we disapprove the decisions that have held the contrary.",751
the hobson opinion is overruled to the extent that it may be inconsistent with our opinion in this case.,752
"people v chambers, 430 mich 217, 222; 421 nw2d 903 (1988).",753
"insofar as those cases hold that the testimony of a witness given at a former trial, and read at the instant trial, because of the nonavailability of the witness cannot be impeached by contradictory statements made subsequent to the former trial, or by statements made prior thereto but where the impeacher clearly shows that he had no knowledge of such contradictory statements, they are, and each of them is, overruled.",754
"for the foregoing reasons, we expressly overrule ehman and now hold that, in order for employees to receive only a 50% pension offset, there must be a line-item deduction appearing on the pay stub or a specific provision in the pension plan indicating a contribution to the pension fund has been made by the employee.",755
"r., 254 s.w.2d 394 (1953) and other cases are in conflict with our holding today, they are overruled.""",756
"with this ruling, the court necessarily abandons as unworkable the overly complex standards employed in cases such as cline and adkins.",757
"saint v. bledsoe, 416 s.w.3d 98, 112 (tex. app.texarkana 2013, no pet.); see also montalvo v. vela, no. 13-14-00166-cv, 2016 wl 192063, at *4 (tex. app.corpus christi jan. 14, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).",758
"moreover, the consent order mandated that the father was to have skype contact with the child one time per week, and the mother failed to comply with that directive.",759
3. closing argument.,760
the court therefore did not abuse its discretion in finding the existence of a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the children.,761
"id. (citing in re marriage of frederici, 338 n.w.2d 156, 158 (iowa 1983)).",762
"see s.c. dep't of soc. servs. v. headden, 354 s.c. 602, 613, 582 s.e.2d 419, 425 (2003) (declining to address additional grounds for tpr when clear and convincing evidence supported tpr on another ground).",763
"defense counsel then stated, """"it [presumptively referring to the evidence to be elicited] would relate to prior bad acts under 404(b)"""", after which defense counsel informed the court that 404(b) requires only notice from the prosecutor.",764
"even as such practices can help employers ensure their workers are compensated for regularly worked minutes that might have once been treated as """"off the clock,"""" they also highlight the need for subsequent line drawing to implement existing   law.",765
we overrule norris to the extent that it allows such use.,766
"considering defendant's lack of any prior criminal record, that he apparently had never done anything like this before, and other circumstances of this case, we do not believe defendant is typical of sexual offenders who receive the maximum sentence.",767
"accordingly, we are compelled to declare la.civ. code art. 160 unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions and to overrule loyacano v. loyacano",768
"it also explicitly precludes review of """"whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal,"""" id.  1252(e)(5), and of """"any other cause or claim arising from or relating to the implementation or operation of"""" the removal order, id.  1252(a)(2)(a)(i).",769
163 ill. app. 3d at 103.,770
"on march 14, 2018, the district court filed a notice in this court certifying that, in light of the nevada supreme court's recent decision in williams v. state department of corrections, 133 nev. ___, 402 p.3d 1260 (2017), it would reconsider appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus if appellant sought a remand to the district court.",771
"kelly is disapproved to the extent that it stands for the proposition that any judicial division of community property necessarily precludes the subsequent litigation of community property rights in an asset known to exist at the time of the earlier proceedings, and which could have been adjudicated at that time.",772
"id., 43. similar to our review of a suppression motion, we uphold the circuit court's findings of historical fact unless clearly erroneous, then independently apply constitutional principles to those facts.",773
we do so now and overrule part iii of montenegro.,774
"and to the extent that dicke is inconsistent with any of today's analysis, it is accordingly overruled.",775
""""" gratz v. bollinger, 539 u.s. 244, 270, 123 s.ct. 2411, 156 l.ed.2d 257 (2003) (quoting adarand constructors, inc. v. pe, 515 u.s. 200, 224, 115 s.ct. 2097, 132 l.ed.2d 158 (1995) ); see also miller, supra, at 904, 115 s.ct. 2475 (""""this rule obtains with equal force regardless of the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification """" (quoting croson, supra, at 494, 109 s.ct. 706 (plurality opinion of o'connor, j.))). """"thus, any person, of whatever race, has the right to demand that any governmental actor subject to the constitution justify any racial classification subjecting that person to unequal treatment under the strictest of judicial scrutiny.",776
"there is a natural overlap between what the photographs show and how the prosecution uses the photographs, and any resulting prejudice.",777
"any contrary holding inwillswood plantation, inc. v. foret, 391 so.2d 1389 (la.app. 4th cir. 1980) is expressly overruled.",778
"accordingly, flowal, ramirez, strayhorn and all other cases before this circuit in which we have held that apprendi applies to mandatory minimum sentences, are overruled to the extent they conflict with harris and this opinion.",779
we therefore overrule webb and find that risinger and its progeny do not violate the principles of equal protection.,780
"""""summary judgment is warranted only if the record shows that 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"""" wenk v. o'reilly, 783 f.3d 585, 593 (6th cir. 2015) (quoting celotex corp. v. catrett, 477 u.s. 317, 322 (1986)).",781
richard's attempts to rely on the circumstances of his injury and medical treatment to undermine the validity of his miranda waiver and statement to weirauch are unavailing.,782
"however, we overrule our prior exclusive reliance on the absolute disparity test in fair cross-section and equal protection cases, and permit district courts to analyze fair cross-section and equal protection cases using the most appropriate methods applicable to the particular challenge.",783
"although the factual scenario set forth in bridgewater is similar to the present case, because the rooker-feldman analysis in bridgewater is drawn from moccio v. new york state office of court administration, 95 f.3d 195, 198 (2d cir. 1996), which was overruled by the supreme court in exxon mobil corp. v. saudi basic indus. corp., 544 u.s. 280, 284, 125 s.ct. 1517, 161 l.ed.2d 454 (2005), it no longer reflects the law of this circuit.",784
"the statute concerns the admission of """"evidence of a statement made by a witness,"""" so that """"the witness"""" in the statute who """"narrates, describes, or explains an event or condition of which the witness had personal knowledge"""" is the person who gave the prior inconsistent statement that a party seeks to admit.",785
"we overrule any suggestion in beam that there may be an inevitable constitutional barrier to the use of dual juries in capital cases, experimentally or otherwise.",786
"i have found no case that explains why a criminal defendant cannot pursue alternative defense theories that are both supported by the evidence, and why such an admission cannot be one simply for purposes of raising and presenting his affirmative defense.",787
we recede from adams and quash the decision below to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.,788
"but having now fully considered these irreconcilable principles, we have concluded that smith must be overruled.",789
"so that the law is free from ambiguity in this area, empire star mines is overruled to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.",790
"therefore, to overcome summary judgment, a party must not only make """"general allegations or conclusory assertions,"""" that do not detail the facts a party believes are in dispute.",791
we hereby modify garcia and hold that the first procedure wherein the jury is informed of the amount of settlement is not acceptable.,792
"to the extent that lantz is inconsistent with our holding today, it is overruled.",793
"pub. l. no. 96-192,  29, 94 stat. 35, 48-49 (1980).",794
chevron has been overruled.,795
"id., 77. we observed further that """"the involvement of a police officer in the interview does not automatically preclude a statement from falling within the medical diagnosis and treatment exception.""""",796
we therefore disapprove the holding in l.w. to the extent it conflicts with this holding.,797
"once more, commenters challenged the cost inflation factor, calling it """"unnecessarily complicated.""""",798
"however, after careful examination of the development and purpose of rule 296, we feel compelled to go further and overrule lassiter and all other decisions after 1957 which have required separate presentment of the initial request for findings and conclusions.",799
"to the extent that owen is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled.",800
"however, for the reasons assigned by judge (now justice) lemmon in his dissent to the original opinion of this court and judge redmann in his dissent to the opinion on remand in seavey we overrule the seavey case.",801
"to the extent that state ex rel. nixon v. belt stands for the proposition that a trial court can never stay a judgment of ouster of a public official, it is overruled.",802
"now that the issue is presented, we reject the hall/sherren dicta suggesting that the prior conviction requirement of section 666 is an ""element"" of a section 666 ""offense.",803
"consequently, once proof is made that the judgment is void based on extrinsic evidence, the judgment is said to be equally ineffective and unenforceable as if the judgment were void on its face because it violates constitutional due process.",804
"those remaining charges proceeded to trial on march 28, 2008, in philadelphia municipal court.",805
"and, the persuasive impact of floyd's confessions must be scrutinized in the light of all the   evidence, presented at trial and new.",806
we specifically overrule johnson to the extent it approves the use of this instruction in the trial courts.,807
held: courts are not required to analyze the doe factors each time a party asserts that a privacy interest exists.,808
"to the extent this was the rationale for the holdings in foothill and jabola, they would appear to be inconsistent with a line of cases which have upheld the constitutionality of similar regulations.",809
"see allred v. exceptional landscapes, inc., 227 n.c. app. 229, 232, 743 s.e.2d 48, 51 (2013) (""""unchallenged findings of fact are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal."""" (citation omitted)).",810
appellant must show that the trial court would have erred in overruling the objection to show ineffective assistance for a failure to object.,811
"he filed a """"motion to suppress and motion to dismiss vindictive prosecution"""" in which he argued that the trial court should exclude """"all evidence resulting from [his] detention and arrest"""" because the arrest and the search of his person violated his constitutional rights.",812
"it is not actionable under section 1983; the contrary suggestion in williams v. city of chicago, 525 f. supp. 85 (n.d.ill. 1981), is disapproved.",813
that average is set based on existing  structures that lie within 250 feet of the applicable measuring point.,814
"our review of the record reveals that white did not argue the capabilities of the recording device were inadequate in his motion to suppress, nor did white make any argument regarding its capabilities during the pre-trial hearing.",815
"unpublished presque isle circuit court family divisionlc no. 15-084025-ds after remand before: m. j. kelly, p.j., and ronayne krause and boonstra, jj. per curiam.",816
"1969), and the subsequent cases based on walton.",817
"##note: i cannot find rose v. sears, roebuck co. in the snippet or full text.",818
"the court of appeals holding to the contrary in state v. gray, 45 kan.app.2d 522, 524, 249 p.3d 465,rev.",819
"marley's testimony that gurino called himself the """"suncruz kid"""" was admissible as a statement against penal interest.",820
"he then estimates that """"at least 960 brake linings were blown out in marcantoni's garage"""" during that period of time. he arrives at that figure by multiplying the number of brake linings per wheel (2) by the number of wheels per tandem dump truck (10) by the number of brake replacements per year (2), which comes to 40 brake linings being blown out per   truck per year.",821
"to the extent deal v. madison can be read to hold that section 2(e) applies only at the option of the defendant, it conflicts with the statute and this opinion, and it is disapproved.",822
"while a warrant was obtained in that case, to the extent that burnstad can be said to stand for the proposition that the warrant requirement of flack and roaden is rendered unnecessary by a defendant's own pejorative characterization of the material it is hereby disapproved.",823
"today's adjudication does not require that the holding of porter be overruled, only its rationale.",824
"now that this court is reexamining that question, i am satisfied with the conclusion that under our statutory law, the husband has no such right and that gist v. french, supra, should be disapproved.",825
"to the extent that language in chiles v. state employees attorneys guild, 734 so.2d 1030, 1034 (fla. 1999), may be read as endorsing use of the ""clearly erroneous"" standard in this regard, we recede from that language",826
"all prior holdings to the contrary on this point are overruled, including the two roselle opinions, supra.",827
any implication of floyd contrary to our decision in the case at bar is disapproved.,828
"to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion, we disapprove alexander ranch v. central appraisal dist.",829
"id., citing barnes v",830
statements such as this did not violate defendants' fifth amendment rights.,831
the cases were all decided prior to the cases cited above in the text.,832
"carmen and fugate, to the extent that they conflict with this opinion, are overruled.",833
"""""intoxication may be proven by the defendant's behavior including: loss of balance, slurred speech, lack of body coordination, and impairment of motor reflexes.""""",834
"to the extent it has any vitality left, we disagree with perumal.",835
"however, to the extent that these decisions stand for such a proposition, we recede and adopt the procedure set forth in rule 9.140(b) and section 924.06(3), florida statutes (1995).",836
"given domond, it is clear that this ground is contrary to current precedent, and cannot stand.",837
"boykin v. george p. morehead living tr., no. m2014-00575-coa-r3-cv, 2015 wl 3455433, at *2 (tenn. ct. app. may 29, 2015) (quoting burgess v. tie co. 1, llc, 44 s.w.3d 922, 923 (tenn.",838
"first, a.p.'s prior statements were admitted as evidence of the material fact that appellant committed the charged offenses.",839
"instead, they clandestinely and deceitfully listed derek as bobby's father.",840
"to the extent that our prior holding in aetna is in conflict herewith, the same is hereby expressly overruled.",841
reyes also appears to assert the district court improperly did not permit him to file a reply after the state filed its opposition to his petition.,842
the trial court denied both motions.,843
"as discussed elsewhere, the absence of that language in the mlssa supports overruling boutte.",844
"walker process, 382 u.s. at 174.",845
to the extent that our nance decision is to the contrary it has been overruled.,846
"whether or not the court intended to convey this meaning in clark v. barney, and because the ruling in that case has lost much of its applicability under later modifications, our previous holding in clark v. barney is hereby expressly overruled insofar as it conflicts with the following rule, which we deem to be controlling in this case:",847
"the principle underlying gaines, however, leads us to now reject the instruction we once approved in tolkow and to overrule that holding.",848
applicant was convicted of solicitation of capital murder and sentenced to life years' imprisonment.,849
"insofar as tucker suggests that a maximum-sentence agreement forecloses such issues, and thus provides support for the notion that a certificate of probable cause is necessary to raise them on appeal, tucker, like stewart, should be disapproved",850
"thus far, the resolution of the question before us seems simple.",851
"fletcher v. univ. hosps. of cleveland, 120 ohio st.3d 167, 2008-ohio-5379, paragraph one of the syllabus.",852
"four of the articles were commentaries predicting that the 2016 election could turn violent, and of these four, two were based on a report of the same election observer.",853
"{19} to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must satisfy a two-prong test: first, counsel's performance has fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and second, appellant was prejudiced by counsel's performance.",854
"accordingly, we overrule zinsmeyer to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.",855
"when the question of illegality of the present sentence was raised by one of the judges on the panel in this appeal, the author referred this case to the court en banc, which (with judges barry, byrnes, ciaccio, ward, and williams dissenting) disapproves liddell on this point as erroneously decided.",856
the trial court denied state farm's motion.,857
"more recently, in williams, the reviewing court also held that no conflict exists between section 115-4.1(g) and supreme court rule 606(b).",858
"as such, we find that the specific test set forth in cruz has been eliminated by section 777.201.",859
any statements in the following decisions which are inconsistent with the views expressed herein are hereby disapproved:,860
"if i were to color match the facts, i might make the statement that i find the new york and new mexico courts more persuasive.",861
"for reasons elaborated in jones, 795 s.w.2d 199, we reject the premises upon which this reasoning is based and, to the extent it suggests that a judgment may not be corrected nunc pro tunc when its recitations are factually erroneous, we overrule bryan.",862
"after full reconsideration of the issues involved, we now reject our earlier position in part vii of fowler and adopt the view taken by the fourth circuit in douglas.",863
"accordingly, we approve the decision below and disapprove saunders, ansel and employee benefit claims to the extent that they authorize relief pursuant to rule 1.540 when a judgment for damages is entered non-jury after a jury trial was demanded and not waived but the parties were given notice of the proceedings.",864
"that is true of the present case; and, due to intervening supreme court precedent, we reject our recent characterization in mosser, followed as binding precedent in this court in a number of cases, see qualchoice, inc., 367 f.3d at 642, 647, that a federal court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over an action ostensibly brought under 29 u.s.c.  1132(a)(3) apparently for solely legal relief.",865
"accordingly, we overrule broadnax and its progeny, and we reaffirm the holdings of cases like craft v. craft, 647 so.2d at 783; pilgrim v. pilgrim, 596 so.2d at 944; and whitehead v. whitehead, 494 so.2d at 458, that a request for an award of alimony after the reservation of the issue must be based upon a material change of circumstances.",866
"accordingly, we overrule alfree and abrogate the doctrine.",867
"contrary to the petitioner's contention, alcoholic beverage control law  118(3) and rule 36.1(q) of the rules of the state liquor authority (9 nycrr)  53.1(q) are not unconstitutionally vague (see matter of kaur v new york state urban dev. corp., 15 ny3d 235; goldberg v corcoran, 153 ad2d 113).",868
we therefore disapprove of baird and rotello to the extent that they hold otherwise.,869
"we thus overrule marcum, american surety co. of n.y. and harrod, supra, to the extent that they approve submitting the issue to the jury, and other cases that leave this question to the jury.",870
we have here given effect to the legislative definition of 'ministry of such church' in art. 7150b which cannot be reconciled with the rationale of the south park baptist church case; it is accordingly overruled.,871
"to the extent that these cases are inconsistent with our conclusion herein, they are disapproved.",872
"because aspects of the analysis in kuha are inconsistent with our opinion today, and are likely to sow confusion if left undisturbed, we abandon part ii.c of our opinion in kuha as circuit precedent.",873
"the state maintains that the compassionate use act is broader than the act, """"does not involve any of the same oversight,"""" and there """"are no safeguards to prevent abuse.""""",874
"williams co. v. director of revenue, 799 s.w.2d 602 (mo.banc 1990), is overruled to the extent it holds that the fifty-percent threshold requirement of section 143.431.3(1) is constitutionally valid.",875
the case of gehman v. superior court (1979) 96 cal.app.3d 257 [ 158 cal.rptr. 62] is disapproved to the extent that it is inconsistent with this conclusion.,876
"for example, in the well-known case of harris v. balk, 198 u.s. 215 (1905), epstein, a resident of maryland, had a claim against balk, a resident of north carolina. harris, another north carolina resident, owed money to balk.",877
"we therefore disapprove people v. bullwinkle (1980) supra, 105 cal.app.3d 82, 86-90, and a dictum in people v. longwill (1975) 14 cal.3d 943, 948 [ 123 cal.rptr. 297, 538 p.2d 753].",878
"thus, we overrule any contrary dicta in hurst to the extent that it may be read as conflicting with this opinion.",879
a trial court has plenary power to reinstate a case on its own motion within thirty days after it signs an order of dismissal for want of prosecution.,880
"to the extent that lopez is inconsistent with this rule, it is hereby overruled.",881
"{8} after the interview was played, defense counsel asked wittich on cross-examination, """"when you were talking to mr. steelman, you were trying to get him to * * * implicate * * * third parties?"""" wittich answered, """"if that was the truth, yes.""""",882
ocga  19-7-3 (c) (1).,883
"see jones, 759 p.2d at 567-68.",884
"insofar as the following opinions are inconsistent with this opinion, they are expressly overruled.",885
"state v. schaller, 975 s.w.2d 313, 318 (tenn.",886
while we believe that we have distinguished the kelly and godfrey cases it should perhaps be said that to the extent those cases may be considered as conflicting with this opinion they should no longer be followed.,887
the result the court reaches follows inexorably from roberts and its progeny without any need for overruling that line of cases.,888
"to the extent that extant oklahoma case law may be construed to reach a contrary conclusion, it is hereby disapproved and withdrawn.",889
"to sustain the position of appellant under the doctrine of the koch case would, in effect, license elderly men under the guise of kindness and charity to take indecent liberties with young girls.",890
""""" (alterations in original) (quoting drd pool serv., inc. , 416 md. at 64, 5 a.3d 45 )).",891
"t.h.-s. (""""mother"""") appeals from the december 19, 2017 order granting her and m.l.s. (""""stepfather"""") joint legal custody of k.m.h. (""""child"""").",892
see id. a trial court may decree an unequal division of an estate as long as a reasonable basis for doing so exists.,893
"norquay, 905 f.2d at 1158-59; see also 18 u.s.c.  1153(b).",894
"because the issues in this case are legal in nature, our review is for legal error.",895
we provide the following explanations of this construction's application.,896
"therefore, to the extent mckinney and civella are inconsistent with this proposition, they are overruled.",897
"that language, unlike  114, does not limit the safe harbor to infringements of federal copyright.",898
"in light of the fact that ducote represented a significant departure from the interpretation of pollution exclusion clauses in louisiana, and, more importantly, because ducote runs counter to the true intent of the exclusion, we overrule it at this time.",899
"so, to the extent that wilkinson holds otherwise, it is overruled.",900
the language and structure of t.r. 75(a) dictate that these cases were wrongly decided.,901
"rather, as discussed, the board separately set out why it would be appropriate to bring employee picketing within that frameworkincluding by reasoning that picketing can be noncoercive and nondisruptive, as the board found was true of the peaceful, stationary holding of picket signs in this case.",902
"there is no law or legal precedent specifically directing that a transit authority must control the schedules and work hours of transit employees to provide safe public transit, and the cta cannot show a well-defined and dominant public policy that prevents collective bargaining of the type of scheduling and work hour matters at issue here.",903
movement across a room to facilitate a robbery might be essential to the commission of the robbery but be incidental thereto within the meaning of daniels. insofar as such cases are inconsistent with the views expressed herein they are disapproved.,904
"in re a.s., 7th dist. no. 11 je 29, 2012-ohio-5468,  10.",905
"because of that conflict, we overrule rollins cause of that conflict, we overrule rollins and reverse the district court's judgment.",906
"holland v. arthur andersen & co., 212 ill. app. 3d 645, 650 (1991).",907
"defense counsel objected, but was overruled by the trial court.",908
see ibid .,909
"we hold that the denial of appellants' motion for summary judgment is not appealable under section 1292(a)(1), and as our result here is inconsistent with the result reached in the above cases we are reversing the rule set forth therein which until now has settled the matter in this circuit in favor of appealability, peter pan fabrics, inc. v. dixon textile corp.",910
(id.; r.r. at 260a-66a.),911
"while the court of appeals' decision in brooks was very effective in advancing kentucky law on the issue of dissenters' appraisal rights, to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion it is overruled.",912
accordingly cochran and similar past holdings are hereby expressly overruled insofar as they collide with the enlightened view now here adopted.,913
"to the extent our previous decisions in duckett, tate, lovelady, and andrews are in conflict with this decision, they are expressly overruled.",914
"accordingly, the decision of the district court is approved, state ex rel. gore newspapers company v. tyson, supra, is overruled, and the writ heretofore issued is discharged.",915
"see zannino, 895 f.2d at 17.",916
"during the bench trial, appellants also objected to a question by adams bank during cynthia mcvay's testimony.",917
"although we are reluctant to abandon settled precedent, a majority of this court is now convinced that our decision in federal kemper was improvident and should be overruled.",918
the magistrate judge recommended that the district court sua sponte dismiss the action under 28 u.s.c.  1915(e)(2)(b),919
"id. msha acknowledged that """"the nearest mine opening may not always be the safest route to the surface"""" and different """"factors affect whether or not the safest, most direct, practical route has been selected,"""" such as """"roof conditions, travel height, fan location, physical dimensions of the mine   opening, and similar considerations.""""",920
we overrule marcum and owens to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.,921
"as the u.s. supreme court has stated,  judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion  directed to a trial judge.",922
it is well settled that the court can award restitution even in the absence of such a request by the public prosecutor.,923
the minnesota legislature similarly limited the lewis court's holding.,924
"it follows that there was no valid judgment against defendant bond; that the execution and garnishment issued thereon was properly quashed; and that williams v. shrout, mo.app., 294 s.w.2d 640, relied on by garnishor, must be and is overruled.",925
"however, farley was overruled by ex parte airhart, 477 so.2d 979 (ala. 1985), in which the alabama supreme court held that there was a fatal variance between an indictment charging theft of currency and proof of the theft of a check.",926
we are constrained to respectfully disagree with that approval and overrule that particular aspect of the myers case.,927
"we hereby overrule alexander, supra, 22 cal.2d 198, and hold that, subject to limitations imposed by statute, the right to petition for judicial review of a final decision of an administrative agency is not necessarily affected by the party's failure to file a request for reconsideration or rehearing before that agency.",928
"47 although defendant likens the testimony at his trial to that of people v. sample, 326 ill. app. 3d 914 (2001), we disagree.",929
"thus, to the degree that olivieri suggests that the present version of the pfa act imposes a common residency requirement, it is expressly overruled.",930
judge dickler is thus immune from suit.,931
"the third article pryce offered into evidence was published on august 8, 2016, on the website of the custer county chief newspaper.",932
we hereby reject that portion of ferguson which is not in accord with this opinion.,933
"texas defines """"bodily injury"""" as """"physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.""""",934
"to the extent that they conflict with this holding, chase, supra, and hill, supra, are overruled.",935
"consequently, the proposed claims against clay would be futile, and we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend.",936
"it was the day after this incident that the defendant called a friend and said, """"[t]hank god [the victim] didn't open the door because i would have kill[ed] her because i had a knife in my hand.""""",937
"my colleagues argue that their imposition of sua sponte estoppel avoids """"unnecessary judicial waste.""""",938
"because the defendant had agreed not to attempt to enforce either provision against the plaintiff, the court did not determine whether either was enforceable.",939
we disapprove the following cases to the extent they are to the contrary:,940
"plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on this issue by demonstrating """"that [wellington], while exposed to an elevation-related hazard, was hit and injured by a falling object, i.e., a load that required securing, because of the absence of adequate safety devices, which hazard was a proximate cause of the accident"""" (jock v landmark healthcare facilities, llc, 62 ad3d at 1072).",941
see section iii(a)(3)(b)(i)(2)(c); see also bnsf app'x at 931-32.,942
the holding of the court in the goldman case was error and it is now specifically overruled.,943
"dr. o'brien testified that banks understands he is in prison, and that he is in prison for the multiple murders.",944
"to the extent that east montgomery water, sewer fire protection authority v. water works sanitary sewer bd. of city of montgomery, 474 so.2d 1088 (ala. 1985), conflicts with this holding, it should no longer be followed.",945
we therefore overrule brice and hold that equitable tolling applies to the vaccine act.,946
"it demonstrates a conscious desire to accomplish an unlawful act, denotes a lack of virtually all personal characteristics we deem important to law practice, threatens to bring significant misfortune on the unsuspecting client and severely impugns the integrity of the profession.""""",947
"to the extent that connor v. farmer, 382 so.2d 1069 (la.app. 1980) may be contrary to this opinion, it is overruled.",948
we disapprove the following cases to the extent they are inconsistent with our opinion today.,949
"accordingly, we overrule davis insofar as it holds that the prosecution can never meet its burden of proving a valid waiver of miranda rights if it fails, without explanation, to call as corroborating witnesses all officers who witnessed the defendant's interrogation.",950
"the district court considered multiple factors, and the risk assessment information was not determinative.",951
also overruled are any cases purporting to follow burrage.,952
"accordingly, to the extent that our decision suggested that the economic loss doctrine bars a cutpa claim arising from the breach of a promise to deliver goods even when the breach was accompanied by aggravating circumstances, we conclude that we must overrule it.",953
"in the hrs get chapter, hrs  237-22 provides that payments for sales, gross receipts, or use taxes paid out of state will be offset.",954
"however, to the extentfesmire, supra, and cases following it require a trial judge, without exception, once an allegation of abuse has been made, to make a finding on the record as to whether ""domestic abuse"" has in fact occurred, they are in error and are hereby overruled.",955
"in re estate of baca, 1980-nmsc-135,  9-10, 95   n.m. 294, 621 p.2d 511 (upholding collateral attack on a 1950 judgment in an estate proceeding stating """"[a] judgment which is void is subject to direct or collateral attack at any time"""").",956
"we cannot conclude that counsel's error, if any, was so serious as to deprive appellant of a fair trial.",957
"thus, the statements in these older cases merely reflected the prevailing law at the time, a rule abrogated by the present version of section 634",958
"to the extent that the decisions in general motors corp. v. ramsey, allis-chalmers mfg. co. v. coplin, ford motor co. v. lemieux lumber co., ford motor co. v. revert, and pierce v. ford motor co. hold or imply that an automobile dealership is the agent or representative of the manufacturer if the dealership performs warranty or recall work, they are disapproved.",959
"franks and wingfield, supra, are overruled as far as their inconsistency with this holding.",960
"id. at 143 n.612, j.a. 1192.",961
"contrary to the grandmother's contention on appeal, under the circumstances of this case, there was a binding and effective waiver by her of the right to counsel (cf. matter of soto v willis, 143 ad3d 728, 729-730).",962
"to the extent any language in herman suggested otherwise, we disavow it.",963
"nevertheless, according to doe, wherever one draws the line between battlefield captive and long-term detainee, he falls on the latter side.",964
id. at 135 (16).,965
"we do recede from rotenberry v. state, 468 so.2d 971 (fla. 1985), to the extent that it may be read to be in conflict with this decision.",966
"toward the end of its analysis, the court again, in the context of analyzing the spectrum of laws and cases establishing limits on punitive awards, observes ... the upper limit is not directed to cases like this one, where the tortious action was worse than negligent but less than malicious, ... the 3:1 ratio ... applies to awards in quite different cases involving ... malicious behavior and dangerous activity carried on for the purpose of increasing a tortfeasor's financial gain.",967
"however, this statement in boland ii is inconsistent with dodds.",968
all appellate decisions of our state conflicting with this decision are receded from or are overruled and in particular burke v. o'brien,969
"(in-home supportive services, supra, 152 cal.app.3d at p. 733.)",970
"as a detainee, enriquez claims, sheriff villanueva wrongfully and unlawfully imprisoned him when sheriff villanueva transferred him back to the penitentiary to continue  serving a sentence that did not exist under furman. enriquez asserts that as a result, he was subjected to false imprisonment and cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his constitutional rights.",971
"in sheldon appel, our supreme court clarified that the question of probable cause in a malicious prosecution case is a question of law. (sheldon appel co. v. albert & oliker, supra, 47 cal.3d at p. 875.)",972
"42 pa.c.s.a.  6302 (1). under the common law rule, the child thus reaches the age of 18 years the day before his or her birthdate.",973
"we hold that an order granting or denying a motion for new trial may be freely rescinded so long as such action occurs within the 75 days provided by the rules (i.e., current rule 21.8(a) (c)); to the extent that matthews and its progeny were held to apply during this time period, they are overruled.",974
"on appeal, bailey contends that the trial judge abused his discretion in not finding that bailey had presented a prima facie case concerning his batson challenge and that the judge failed to follow proper procedure once bailey had made his prima facie showing.",975
arana v. koerner is overruled to the extent it indicates otherwise.,976
"to the extent that marshall-silver can be read to hold otherwise, it is overruled.",977
"(shoemaker v. myers (1990) 52 cal.3d 1, 7.)",978
"for clarity, we overrule bruce's interpretation that escalation clauses must be tied to all four factors.",979
"where a trial court sustains an objection to the admission of evidence, in order to preserve the issue for appeal, there must be a proffer.",980
"we disagree, and expressly reject the reasoning of mid-continent and utica square.",981
"to the extent state v. mckrackern, 1945, 141 me. 194, 41 a.2d 817, may hold that aggravation, even in general terms, need not be alleged in the indictment, it is overruled.",982
we conclude that we should.,983
"to the extent they are inconsistent herewith, the cases of procunier v. superior court (losoya) (1973) 35 cal.app.3d 207 [ 110 cal.rptr. 529], and procunier v. superior court (herth) (1973) 35 cal.app.3d 211 [ 110 cal.rptr. 531], are disapproved.",984
"ct. app. 1992), and state ex rel. department of pub. safety v. 1989 ford probe, vin # 1zvbt21c3k5182641, ok tag # icw579, 854 p.2d 386 (okla.",985
"the issue before the supreme court was """"whether the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments?"""" id.",986
"accordingly, we similarly disapprove the decisions in vanderbilt inn on the gulf v. pfenninger, __ so.2d __, 2002 wl 459252 (fla. 2d dca february 8, 2002), bomemann v. ure, 778 so.2d 1077 (fla. 4th dca 2001), and silva v. lazar, 766 so.2d 341 (fla. 4th dca 2000), to the extent that they adopt the erroneous due diligence principle of tejada which is disapproved here.",987
"pockman v. leonard, supra, 39 cal.2d 676, holding to the contrary, is overruled.",988
"the false statement must point to the plaintiff and """"to no one else."""" newspapers, inc., 339 s.w.2d at 894; houseman, 242 s.w.3d at 525.",989
"we therefore disapprove the discussion in russell v. roberts, supra, 39 cal.app.3d at pages 394-395, and the dicta in goodyear v. mack, supra, 159 cal.app.3d at pages 659-660, and shepherd v. robinson, supra, 128 cal.app.3d at page 626.",990
"martin v. twp enterprises inc., 227 md. app. 33, 49 (2016) (quoting baltimore luggage co. v. holtzman, 80 md. app. 282, 290 (1989).",991
"over a year later, debora filed a pro se motion for release (satisfaction) of judgment based upon a release entered into between ryan and brewer, prior to the entry of judgment against debora.",992
see general statutes  51-199 (c).,993
"it is true, as the district court noted, r. 356 (dist.",994
"c.v. stated that after r.s. brought him back into the room, j.s. held his arms again.",995
"the relevant court order did not ask dr. goff or anyone else to provide the defense with help in evaluating, preparing, and presenting its case.",996
"to the extent that the decision in wilson v. united states, 669 f.supp. 563 (e.d.n.y. 1987), is inconsistent with our holding here, we overrule it.",997
"for these reasons, the district court did not err in determining that appellant did not overcome the presumption that she was palpably unfit to parent her four children.",998
"furthermore, when objecting to the result, which was the trial judge's announcement of a judgment of acquittal and that he would dismiss the jury, the prosecution still failed to identify that article 778 provided no direct support for the acquittal.",999
"the federal immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals (bia) found respondent removable, but the ninth circuit summarily remanded in light of its earlier penuliar decision holding that ""aiding and abetting"" a theft is not itself a crime under the generic definition of theft.",1000
"wood v. starko, 197 s.w.3d 255, 257 (tenn.",1001
"we have reconsidered the rule of those cases in light of our decisions in law and adams, and we today overrule those cases to the extent that they allow parole revocation to be made effective upon the completion of a sentence imposed for an offense while the prisoner was on parole, or to be made effective in futuro upon similar future occurrence or condition.",1002
"this was the legislative intent and in so far as arnold, supra, holds to the contrary it is specifically overruled.",1003
"we quash the decision of the first district in this case and disapprove its decisions in lundy, wood, and campbell.",1004
"the en banc court unanimously votes to overrule morin v. helfrick, 930 s.w.2d 733, 738 (tex.app.  houston [1st dist.] 1996, no writ), as set out in part a, footnote 4, of the opinion.",1005
"to the extent people v. gallegos, 789 p.2d 461 (colo.app. 1989), is inconsistent with the views expressed herein, that decision is disapproved.",1006
"criminal appeal from the court of common pleas of mahoning county, ohiocase no. 16 cr 810 before: carol ann robb, gene donofrio, kathleen bartlett, judges. judgment: affirmed. atty. paul j. gains, mahoning county prosecutor, atty. ralph m. rivera, assistant prosecuting attorney 21 west boardman street, 6th floor, youngstown, ohio 44503, for plaintiff-appellee and atty. edward a. czopur, degenova & yarwood, ltd, 42 north phelps street, youngstown, ohio 44503 for defendant-appellant.  robb, p.j.",1007
we overrule himont to the extent that it permitted such a remedy.,1008
"sheley v. fla. parole comm'n, 720 so. 2d 216, 218 (fla. 1998).",1009
"southern reporter. (madison circuit court, dr-17-3415)  per curiam.",1010
"he asserts that the jury saw deputies escorting him to the lock up, which he contends is the equivalent of visible shackling.",1011
"to the extent that barnes v. blue haven pools (1969) 1 cal.app.3d 123, which was decided under summary judgment law as it stood prior to the 1992 and 1993 amendments, is to the contrary, it is no longer vital inasmuch as such law as it stands now is materially different.",1012
"see, e.g., in re paulson, 346 or 676, 713, 216 p3d 859 (2009), adh'd to as modified on recons, 347 or 529, 225 p3d 41 (2010) (quoting aba standards at 7).",1013
"the second cause of action asserted that the liquidated damages clause of the leases was void as a penalty banned by civil code section 1671, or, in the alternative, should be construed as authorizing termination of the lease prior to its expiration.",1014
"in sheppard, the fourth district court of appeal disagreed, expressly rejecting sagaert, and stating that to allow the provision's application to repayment proceedings would be an inappropriate invasion by the judiciary into the legislative arena, contrary to the constitutional mandate which separates the two respective governmental powers.",1015
we disapprove gamez to the extent it conflicts with our decision in this case.,1016
bonnell at  29.,1017
but the government in jones never took a position as to plain error review (because the challenge to the firearms and toolmark examiner's testimony was preserved).,1018
"to the extent that don hill holds that a derivative claimant can perfect a lien without timely supplying all of the notices required by section 53.056 of the texas property code, it is overruled.",1019
the court of appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded to the district court to engage in a quantum meruit analysis by applying a set of factors that it listed in the opinion.,1020
"those cases (cavarly and clark) and such cases as estate of blake, 157 cal. 448 [ 108 p. 287], and estate of hamon, 136 cal.app. 517 [ 29 p.2d 326], are disapproved insofar as the question herein decided is concerned.",1021
all other amendments require the court's permission or a stipulation of the parties.,1022
defendant sent four letters to counsel between january 2011 and november 2014. he received no response from counsel and waited four years before contacting the clerk's office.,1023
thus both precedent and established principles of judicial construction dictate the conclusion that hurst erred in holding the notice and hearing provisions of the zoning act of 1917 applied to zoning ordinances enacted by initiative.,1024
"accordingly, we hereby recede from the statement referred to above in barr v. state, supra, and the judgment and sentence for contempt is",1025
"the petitioner has not demonstrated that the absence of an evaluation by a mental health expert had any effect on the outcome of the proceeding, and he is not entitled to relief.",1026
"to the extent that our opinions in baker v. mayor and city council of baltimore, 894 f.2d 679, 682 (4th cir.), cert. denied, 498 u.s. 815 (1990), and schlitz v. commonwealth of virginia, 854 f.2d 43, 45-46 (4th cir. 1988), can be read to confer legislative immunity on municipalities from suits brought under section 1983, those decisions are overruled.",1027
"to the extent that the williams and perkins court of appeal opinions held as a matter of law, either implicitly or explicitly, that prescription cannot begin to run under la.r.s. 23:1031.1.e",1028
"to the extent that these cases are inconsistent with our opinion today, they are disapproved.",1029
no such authority is required to be shown in cases involving the forgery of a check and the contrary holding in fain v. commonwealth is overruled.,1030
"therefore, we specifically reject our prior cases which rely on an ""ultimate objective"" or ""primary offense"" test.",1031
"although the fines and fees order provides for offset of these fines, it does not state the number of days' credit defendant should receive or reflect the credit was actually awarded.",1032
"thus, tompkin and amendola are overruled to the extent that they provide that ohio common law negligence claims arising prior to the 2005 amendment of the ohio products liability act are abrogated by the act.",1033
"thus, to the degree that procon suggests that udot waives a contract's written notice provisions if the udot board of review resolves a claim against udot on other grounds, we disavow that interpretation.",1034
"""""the supreme court has made 'clear that reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent [person] would have published [or spoken], or would have investigated before publishing [or speaking].'",1035
"id.  2255(f)(3). dodd v. united states clarifies that this limitation period begins when the supreme court declares a new right, not when courts first acknowledge that right to be retroactive.",1036
"awards of enhanced damages under the patent act over the past 180 years establish that they are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a """"punitive"""" or """"vindictive"""" sanction for egregious infringement behavior.",1037
"heard complied, """"but she did not stop hollering.""""",1038
"in the wake of hohn, we must overrule beeler and kelly iii's holding that a habeas corpus ""case"" is not pending until the habeas petition itself has been filed.",1039
in that case the biological mother gave her consent to adoption and then sought to withdraw it.,1040
". to the extent they conflict with this holding, we disapprove dameshghi, supra, 3 cal.app.4th 1262, and renfrew, supra, 175 cal.app.3d 1105.",1041
"because the result reached in state v. murdock, 299 kan. 312, 323 p.3d 846 (2014), modified by supreme court order september 19, 2014, was dictated by williams, we also overrule murdock.",1042
" actually, in his appellate briefing, mr. havens argues that he is entitled to compensatory damages under both title ii and  504.",1043
"see 691 n.w.2d 726, 729 (iowa 2005).",1044
"to the extent of conflict roy v. state, supra, is overruled.",1045
"we now hold that zauderer in fact does reach beyond problems of deception, sufficiently to encompass the disclosure mandates at issue here.",1046
any language in the bleuer case in conflict with or contrary to the opinion expressed herein is withdrawn and disapproved.,1047
"and to the extent that tichenor relied on united states v. demaree, 459 f.3d 791 (7th cir.2006), to distinguish the guidelines from criminal statutes, that is the very ex post facto case that peugh abrogated.",1048
"the various mitigating factors are unavailing because by virtue of his felony conviction, the respondent was automatically disbarred and ceased to be an attorney pursuant to judiciary law  90(4)(a) (see matter of ginsberg, 1 ny2d 144).",1049
 and the village's argument on this point.,1050
"qualified immunity protects """"all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.""""",1051
"in reaching this result, we will also overrule our decision in auer.",1052
"wayman argued that in ogle this court expressly overruled strickland v. mobile towing wrecking co., 293 ala. 348, 303 so.2d 98 (1974), upon which, wayman argues, downtown nursing home relied, thereby effectively overruling downtown nursing home.",1053
"""""the odor of raw marijuana - especially an overwhelming odor of raw marijuana - creates probable cause to believe that a large quantity of raw marijuana will be found.""""",1054
"bu does not even suggest that these results were accomplished by following the specification's teachings, or that achieving these results was within an ordinary artisan's skill as of the patent's effective filing date.",1055
"lyons, special justice (concurring specially in case no. 1130184).",1056
there is no expression by congress here of a waiver of sovereign immunity where the irs acts reasonably and in good faith to collect tax debts it reasonably believes do not fall within the   scope of a discharge injunction.,1057
"on october 4, 2012, the defendant filed a sora registration form at the swansea police department listing his current address.",1058
"it is unlikely that similar circumstances will often be replicated, but where a judge does come to have  no matter how  extrajudicial """"personal knowledge"""" of a """"disputed evidentiary fact[],"""" as we conclude was the case here, the trial judge is required to recuse herself under subsection (a) of canon 3(e)(1); model judicial code, rule 2.11(a)(1).",1059
"because our case law does not support the approach set forth in cobarruvias, we affirm division two and hold that a trial court need not expressly state the presumption against waiver, nor must it begin its analysis of voluntariness anew when evaluating the third prong of the thomson analysis.",1060
the court's order concluded that plaintiff's complaint was time-barred.,1061
"to the extent united states v. king, 521 f.2d 61 (10th cir. 1975), holds to the contrary, it is overruled.",1062
"thus, we now overrule cooper stevedoring co., inc.",1063
"in accord with robbins, we overrule turner in part and implement the following procedure to govern cases where appellate counsel represents an indigent criminal defendant and does not believe his or her client's case presents any arguable issues on appeal:",1064
we further disapprove the decision in d.f.,1065
"in order to bring harmony both within and among the circuits, we now overrule the portion of lee dealing with the treatment of theft and hold that theft from a person is a violent felony under the armed career criminal act.",1066
"to the extent farmers suggests that the partridge analysis applies in the coverage determination, we disapprove of that decision.",1067
in that respect the opinion in the webb case is in error and is in conflict with what we have said in this opinion.,1068
"accordingly, we overrule those appellate decisions which employ the abuse of discretion standard in an appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion to recuse because it did not meet the criteria of uscr 25.3.",1069
"we overrule courier-journal v. mcdonald, ky., 524 s.w.2d 633 (1974) to the extent that it is in conflict with this opinion.",1070
"43 but standing is not a prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction; it is the state's burden to demonstrate lack of standing, and that argument may be forfeited if not timely raised.",1071
"in the instant case, since the subject matter of the cross-examination did not concern prior crimes, acts or misconduct of the accused, a johnson hearing was not required.",1072
"accordingly, we now adopt that rule and disapprove the court of appeal decision in glende motor, supra, 159 cal.app.3d 389, to the extent that it is contrary to our conclusion.",1073
the commission further held that the swb could rely upon earlier reprimands in issuing future discipline.,1074
"thus, we disapprove that case to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion.",1075
"the defendant has the burden of showing that the testimony would have been both favorable and material to his defense.""""",1076
easiest way to see the majority's error is to take its own example: an airline passenger who rejects a $300 voucher for taking a later flight.,1077
"under the circumstances, we conclude that it is appropriate to overrule casey, 6 harvey, and subsequent decisions holding that the venue guarantee of article i, section 11, requires the state to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt as a material allegation of every criminalcase.",1078
"o the extent to which people v. kimbley (1961) 189 cal.app.2d 300 [ 11 cal.rptr. 519], and people v. berner (1938) 28 cal.app.2d 392 [ 82 p.2d 617], are inconsistent with the views expressed herein, they are disapproved.",1079
2016) (quoting minn. sent. guidelines 2.d.1 (supp.,1080
"a, c s, aligning itself with east river, expressly rejects pennsylvania glass, which, as we have stated, provided the basis for vaughn's damage to the product itself tort recovery.",1081
"taken in light of the parties' contentious history, the evidence did not so clearly preponderate against the trial court's decision as to render it erroneous.",1082
"indeed, in the same year we decided latimer we overruled a different sentencing precedent in people v. king (1993) 5 cal.4th 59 ( king).",1083
"any statements to the contrary in johnson v. county of fresno, 64 cal.app.2d 576 [ 149 p.2d 38]; klimper v. city of glendale, 99 cal.app.2d 446 [ 222 p.2d 49]; brown v. sequoia union high school dist., 89 cal.app.2d 604 [ 201 p.2d 66]; and slavin v. city of glendale, 97 cal.app.2d 407 [ 217 p.2d 984], are disapproved.",1084
the timeliness of bradshaw's attempt to obtain a pdr rehearing determines when his conviction became final and when the limitations period began to run.,1085
j.a. 113-15.,1086
"we have assumed that the anticompetitive conduct here independently caused foreign injury; that is, the conduct's domestic effects did not help to bring about that foreign injury.",1087
"rather, nalwafar from disagreeing with knight referenced it as the """"seminal decision explicating and applying primary assumption of risk in the recreational context.""""",1088
"see 1 j. kalinowski, antitrust laws and trade regulation 12.02[1] (2d ed. 2017) (kalinowski); p. areeda & h. hovenkamp, fundamentals of antitrust law 15.02[b] (4th ed. 2017) (areeda & hovenkamp); capital imaging assoc., p. c. v. mohawk valley medical associates, inc., 996 f. 2d 537, 543 (ca2 1993).",1089
"he also left the scene of the crime, wrote a note to his mother under the apparent belief that he would be going to prison, and proclaimed a plan to commit suicide.",1090
the accident report contains no reference to a low back injury.,1091
"to the extent that syllabus point 3 of state v. caudill, 170 w.va. 74, 289 s.e.2d 748 (1982) is inconsistent, it is hereby modified.",1092
"as discussed above, those tribunals have been found to operate   consistently with the constitution and their judgments bar subsequent civilian prosecution for charges resolved therein.",1093
"insofar as it is inconsistent with our holding in this case, mullane v. industrial acc. com., supra, is disapproved.",1094
"a rereading and rethinking of victor in relation to douglas v. california, supra, and our discussion in the instant opinion, convinces us that victor was not correct and should be overruled.",1095
"in light of the caswell decision, the rule expressed in loschiavo, that a federal regulation alone may create a right enforceable through  1983, is no longer viable.",1096
"we specifically recede from salley v. city of st. petersburg, 511 so.2d 975 (fla. 1987), to the extent that it suggests that appellate fees may be awarded, even if a party fails to comply with the substantive requirements of florida rule of appellate procedure 9.400(b).",1097
"as salerno observed, the bail reform act required individualized hearings in which """"the government [had to] convince a neutral decisionmaker by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or any person."""" 481 u.s. at 750.",1098
we disapprove of other courts of appeals' decisions to the extent that they applied the particularized need/risk analysis to claims brought by suspects injured during an arrest.,1099
"to the extent that samaniego-meraz conflicts with our holding today, it is overruled.",1100
"on this point, insofar as montgomery v. state, supra, and cases cited therein, state a different rule, we overrule them, and hold that such questions are questions of fact, not law, and that it is up to the trier of fact to weigh those factors and determine whether the defendant was intoxicated and, if so, whether the intoxication was a result of alcohol consumption prior to or after the commission of an offense.",1101
"see golden eagle archery, inc. v. jackson, 116 s.w.3d 757, 761 (tex. 2003).",1102
[appellant risner br. at 18-19].,1103
"however, to the extent the case was not dismissed on procedural grounds, the johnson case is contrary to the supreme court's opinion in foremost insurance company v. shepard, supra.",1104
"ibid. """"race is not assigned an explicit numerical value, but it is undisputed that race is a meaningful factor.""""",1105
"moreover, our analysis of the decisions of the united states supreme court now requires us to recede from that portion ofgrossman which relied upon the interlocking nature of the confession to provide the requisite indicia of reliability.",1106
"to the extent it is inconsistent with this conclusion, tabucchi, supra, 64 cal.app.3d 133, is disapproved.",1107
we therefore recede from dania to the extent that it conflicts with heggs.,1108
"initially, in opposition to petitioner's motion for class certification, respondent relied primarily on the governmental operations rule, which provides that class actions are not a superior method for resolving multiple claims against administrative agencies because stare decisis will protect the potential class members by ensuring prospective application of a favorable judgment.",1109
"williams disapproved of people v. morris (1987) 192 cal.app.3d 380, 237 cal.rptr. 402 ( morris ) to the extent it is inconsistent with our conclusion that defendant's miranda arguments are without merit.",1110
"however, we do not read section 58-37-13 to require a showing of a profit motive on the part of the person involved in the transportation and distribution of drugs; to the extent one porsche is contrary it is overruled.",1111
" see terry v. ohio, 392 u.s. 1, 30 (1968) (holding that police may stop and briefly detain a person for purposes of investigation if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot).",1112
"this decision typically can be made without a hearing because eligibility is often obvious on the incontrovertible written record.""""",1113
see id.  154.128(a)(3).,1114
it further quoted commissioner norris as saying:,1115
"defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the supreme court, bronx county, rendered on or about may 15, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant's brief, and for related relief, now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant's brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the district attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to rule 600.11 of the rules of this court.",1116
we reject wilder's arguments and affirm.,1117
"in howard, we rejected the appellant's sixth amendment claim because we found the chemist's reports were """"sufficiently trustworthy to satisfy the purpose of the confrontation clause."""" 473 a.2d at 839.",1118
"in any event, if they are contrary to the result we have reached, we overrule them.",1119
"in sum, hernandez is modified as follows: double credit should not be awarded where a defendant is sentenced to consecutive sentences under separate indictments and receives the optimal benefits of jail credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody.",1120
that view has been disapproved.,1121
"therefore, to the extent that cases in this jurisdiction imply that misconduct must be intentional before it constitutes reversible error, they are disapproved.",1122
"11 here, the bondsman tracked durfey to montana.",1123
"to the extent they are inconsistent with this conclusion, we disapprove jue v. patton, supra, 33 cal.app.4th 456, and ryder v. peterson, supra, 51 cal.app.4th 1056.",1124
"in accord then with the numerous considerations discussed throughout this opinion, and on the basis of the legislature's amendment of alabama's homicide statute to include protection for an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability,  13a61(a)(3), we overrule lollar and gentry, and we hold that the wrongful death act permits an action for the death of a previable fetus.",1125
"an alj may discount the opinion of an """"other source,"""" such as a qualified mental health practitioner like daneke, if he provides a reason """"germane to [the] witness for doing so."""" popa v. berryhill, 872 f.3d 901, 906 (9th cir. 2017)  (internal quotation marks omitted); see 20 c.f.r.  416.913 (2013).",1126
"thus, florida has always required jury verdicts to be unanimous on the elements of criminal offenses.",1127
"he also admitted that, before he confessed, he requested that the police charge him with manslaughter in exchange for his statement.",1128
"to the extent that busot v. busot, 354 so.2d 1255 (fla.2d dca 1978); clemons v. morris, 350 so.2d 519 (fla. 4th dca 1977); hall v. air force finance center, department of the air force of the united states, 344 so.2d 1340 (fla. 1st dca 1977); and decastro v. decastro, 334 so.2d 834 (fla.3d dca 1976), are inconsistent with this decision, they are disapproved.",1129
"having reviewed the issue en banc, we overrule mckenzie and reverse the award of a contingency enhancement to ms. king.",1130
we have held that a district court's failure to give a heat-of-passion manslaughter charge to the jury does not prejudice a defendant when the jury is presented with second-degree intentional murder and first-degree premeditated murder and finds the defendant   guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.,1131
"we stated, """"employers owe certain nondelegable and continuous duties to employees acting in the course and scope of their duties, including the duties to warn about the hazards of employment, to supervise activities, to furnish a reasonably safe workplace, and to furnish reasonably safe instrumentalities with which to work.""""",1132
"limiting the assertion to the facts of this case, the respondent actually did propose that i rely on the unaffected market price.",1133
"because bluebonnet express, inc. v. employers ins. of wausau, 655 s.w.2d 327 (tex.app.  houston [14th dist.] 1983, no writ) held to the contrary, it is disapproved.",1134
"the rationale behind the principle that a """"defendant may not receive a harsher sentence solely, or even partially, because he refuses to plead guilty and proceeds to require the prosecution to prove his guilt"""" """"is that the coercion or inducement casts a chill over the exercise of guaranteed fundamental constitutional rights.""""",1135
"although the result would not have been different in that case under the standard articulated here, we disapprove of the standard as presented in robinson.",1136
"the third district certified conflict with the decisions in hoenstine v. state farm fire casualty co., 736 so.2d 761 (fla. 5th dca 1999), and florida farm bureau casualty insurance co. v. sheaffer.",1137
trial court's findings were not against manifest weight of evidence.,1138
the court of appeals adopted a somewhat more moderate construction of the regulation.,1139
"any brief that appellant files must comply with the applicable provisions of the texas rules of appellate procedure, including rule 38.1, which sets out the requirements for an appellant's brief.",1140
"years later, the defendant perjured himself in front of a grand jury when he was called to testify as part of a renewed investigation into the alleged counterfeiting.",1141
"as an intermediate appellate court, we are required to follow the holdings of the ohio supreme court, which is the ultimate authority on matters of state law.",1142
"we are thus persuaded that it is time, indeed past time, to overrule hicks and the cases relying upon it and to recognize iaac claims premised upon appellate counsel's alleged failure to raise a particular issue on direct appeal.",1143
"the decision in jopes v. salt lake county, 9 utah 2d, 297, 343 p.2d 728 (1959), is hereby overruled.",1144
"we hold that indiana code section 32-24-1-13(a) exempts the transportation department from any such requirement, thereby over-ruling decker v. state.",1145
"moreover, the herbsts seek only to affirm the judgment of the court of appeals remanding the case to the trial court.",1146
"accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, disapprove deruyter, and approve the decision of the court below.",1147
"the error was quickly discovered, however, and the defendants' answer was thereafter filed, albeit eight days late.",1148
"the victim went into the bedroom and when she hesitated, the defendant pushed her down on the bed.",1149
"to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion, haines, 428 so.2d 590 (miss.",1150
"however, our discussion above of the supreme court cases indicates that the jurisdictional label has often been used loosely, and sometimes interchanged in the same opinion with statute of limitations terminology.",1151
"to the extent that stewart indicates that a defendant may be convicted of and sentenced for both of those offenses involving the death of the same victim, that case is disapproved.",1152
"to the extent that this dictum is inconsistent with our holding here, we expressly overrule it.",1153
mcl 450.1209(1)(c)(ii).,1154
"appellate review that is not founded upon any factual findings made at the trial court level, but is based upon an independent review and analysis of the contract within the four corners of the document, is not subject to the manifest error rule of law.",1155
"(fsor at p. 20; see also id. at p. 8 [noting standards board's belief that """"requiring all employers with employees working outdoors to determine the wbgt [wet bulb globe temperature] on a continuous, or even intermittent, basis would not substantially contribute to control of employee risk of heat illness while at the same time consuming resources that could have a greater effect implementing control measures, such as providing readily available drinking water along with shade and other means of cooling""""].)",1156
"on this record we are unable to conclude with any degree of certainty that finneman received a fair trial on the charge of possession with intent to deliver, and we exercise our discretion and notice the obvious error on the charge of possession of 500 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver.",1157
"to the extent that cox v. state, 1986 ok cr 154,  3-7, 726 p.2d 909, 910-11, in fact, applies the  742 corroboration requirement to the conspiracy conviction at issue in that case (in addition to the presenting a false insurance claim conviction), it is hereby overruled.",1158
"today, in line with the united states supreme court precedent in macdonald and our court of appeals' admonitions, we hereby overrule our decisions in callaway and in boseman.",1159
there is a rational connection between its impoundments of prison legal news based on the magazine's ad content and prison security and public safety interests.,1160
"this case is similar to norred, in which we overruled prior precedent to hold that ocga  9372, which tolls the limitations period for medical malpractice case where a foreign object has been left in a patient's body, is not limited to cases in which the object is left unintentionally.",1161
"3 (2011); accord  sanchez, 770 n.w.2d at 526.",1162
"the contrary holding in prendiville v. contemporary homes, inc., 32 kan.app.2d 435, 83 p.3d 1257, rev. denied 278 kan. 847 (2004), is overruled.",1163
"given  the trial judge's vast discretion in awarding damages, we cannot find that the trial court's award is unsupported by the record or clearly wrong.",1164
"further, bradshaw repeatedly followed up on the motion he said he mailed and then filed a second motion after he found out the first one was not filed.",1165
"[24] the michels argue the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing and rely on britton, 2013 mt 30,  27, 300 p.3d 667, in which the montana supreme court held due process requires an evidentiary hearing in partition actions under certain circumstances.",1166
"accordingly, we approve the decision under review and disapprove thomas and johnson to the extent of conflict with this opinion.",1167
"while we reject the rigid zone of danger approach set forth in shelton, that rejection serves only to dissolve rigid, often nonsensical, physical injury and contemporaneous fear requirements.",1168
the court's decision to abandon durham-mcdonald in favor of ali- mcdonald does nothing to obsolete these questions or the court's responses to them.,1169
"we hold, therefore, that  537.080 does provide a cause of action for the wrongful death of a viable fetus.",1170
"state v. stephen j. r., 309 conn. 586, 605-606, 72 a.3d 379 (2013); see also state v. ciullo, 314 conn. 28, 56, 100 a.3d 779 (2014); state v. campbell, 141 conn. app. 55, 63, 60 a.3d 967, cert. denied, 308 conn. 933, 64 a.3d 331 (2013).",1171
"as a result, the davis court overruled the holding in sablatura and dismissed the appeal.",1172
both of those exhibits were admitted without objection.,1173
"to the extent that our statement in griffin suggests that the jury could not have found parker guilty of both intentional and reckless assault because the two crimes require proof that a defendant simultaneously acted intentionally and recklessly with respect to the same result, we disavow any such suggestion because, as we have explained, the state's evidence may establish that the defendant acted intentionally and recklessly with regard to a different result.",1174
"in so doing, we have decided this case as a full court to recede from lopez v. state, 805 so.2d 41 (fla. 4th dca 2001), which held that it is fundamental error to instruct a jury in burglary cases where the ""remaining in"" language of the standard instruction is erroneously included.",1175
"plaintiff's motion should have been denied, since the new evidence that plaintiff submitted in support of renewal, a loan document purporting to reduce the interest rate to the legal rate in the event of a finding of usury, would not change the prior determination that the loan was criminally usurious (see bakhash v winston, 134 ad3d 468 [1st dept 2015]; cplr 2221[e][2]).",1176
"the holding of travelers express co., inc. v. rener, 493 s.w.2d 549 (tex.civ.app. 1973, no writ) is disapproved.",1177
"to the extent that aggers v. bridges, supra, and state v. parks, supra, are inconsistent with this holding, they are hereby overruled.",1178
"in so agreeing, we overrule our holding in the matter of t r w , 533 s.w.2d 139, 142 (tex.civ.app. dallas 1976, no writ) insofar as we left to the discretion of the trial court whether to hear additional evidence or to render a different disposition, rather than render a proper order.",1179
"on that issue too, the court of appeals noted a division among the circuits.",1180
"accordingly, buian is hereby overruled.",1181
the district court found that visitation with rohmiller and clayton was in b.h.'s best interests because b.h. would likely suffer emotional harm if ties to the maternal family were severed.,1182
"because we agree with the defendant's alternative claim that smith must be overruled to the extent that it applies to cases in which the state has conducted a first time in-court identification, we need not address this claim.",1183
"given its reasoning, i do not believe that the d.c. circuit would have reviewed the district court's order on interlocutory appeal.",1184
"it is hereby ordered that the motion is granted to the extent that enforcement of the order entered february 6, 2018 is stayed until july 16, 2018, or until 10 days after supreme court affixes the amount of the undertaking for an automatic stay pursuant to cplr 5519 (a) (4), whichever occurs first (see wilkinson v sukiennik,120 ad2d 989 [4th dept 1986]).",1185
id. at 248-49.,1186
"in 1995, the county adopted an ordinance banning billboards in the area where lamar's billboard was located.",1187
"gipson-jelks v. gipson, 468 s.w.3d 600, 604 (tex. app.houston [14th dist.] 2015, no pet.).",1188
"to the extent that it suggests the defense of alibi invariably and necessarily creates a material issue as to ""identity"" so as to dispense with further analysis as to the admissibility of extraneous offense evidence, cameron, supra, is overruled.",1189
"however, in smith v. state, 918 so.2d 141 (ala.crim.app. 2005), an opinion released today, we expressly overrule our previous holdings in kelley v. state, 911 so.2d 1125 (ala.crim.app. 2004); coleman v. state, 911 so.2d 1099 (ala.crim.app. 2004); and thornton v. state, 859 so.2d 458 (ala.crim.app. 2003), that a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a rule 32 petition that has not been properly verified, and we hold that the lack of verification of a rule 32 petition is not a defect of subject-matter jurisdiction; rather, it is a defect that is waived if not properly objected to the state did not object in this case to the lack of proper verification of presley's petition; therefore, that issue is deemed to be waived.",1190
"the 2011 amendment, however, applies only to an acknowledgment that became effective on or after the effective date of the act, september 1, 2011. act of may 27, 2011, 82nd leg., r.s., ch. 1221, sec. 11, 2011 tex. gen. laws 2356, 2359.",1191
"the writ remains ancillary in nature, as often stated in previous application of the constitutional writs provision, but our decision here represents a departure from, and effectively overrules, such pronouncements as in state ex rel. watson v. lee that the ""all writs"" provision may not be invoked ""until jurisdiction is acquired"" over the cause by means of independent appellate proceedings.",1192
"in the sixth circuit, """"[i]f a defendant fails to rebut a race-neutral explanation at the time it was made, the district court's ruling on the objection is reviewed for plain error, and the movant in this setting is in no position to register a procedural complaint that the district court failed to give a specific reason on the record for accepting the government's race-neutral explanation.",1193
"moreover, the legislature asserts that good enough or close enoughas only the legislature has the power to define those termssuffice when asking the people to consent to the adoption of a constitutional amendment.",1194
to the extent that johnson implies that the rule controls over section 510.150,1195
"because rigazio's tax returns were not relevant to whether defendant committed theft, defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced by her counsel's failure to subpoena them.",1196
"because county boards of education are local agencies of the state, they are clothed in constitutional immunity from suit, and we overrule sims and kimmons, 204 ala. at 387, 85 so. at 777 (""the county board of education is given the right to sue, and the implied right to be sued. . . .""), to the extent that they and their progeny impose an implied ""right to be sued"" on county boards of education.",1197
"in its holding, the third district adopted the reasoning of the fifth district's opinion in spilman, while certifying conflict with the fourth district's opinion in hamilton.",1198
we also recede from scott v. state and sweeting v. state insofar as they hold that the limits of a court's inherent power over the subject matter are defined by the extent to which its actions are lawful.,1199
the ij's conclusion that baba's testimony was too vague  to meet his burden of proof raises concern.,1200
"see bagnara, 189 so. 3d at 172 (counsel's failure to properly move for joa when state did not prove value element of grand theft constituted ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record); gordon v. state, 126 so. 3d 292, 295-96 (fla. 3d dca 2011) (counsel's failure to properly move for joa when state did not prove all of the elements of charged crime constituted ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record).",1201
"to the extent that these decisions advance this reasoning, they are disapproved.",1202
we agree with emery and disapprove people v. osorio,1203
"should the conclusion we have reached appear to be in conflict with what has heretofore been said by this court in state ex rel. landis v. city of hollywood, 130 fla. 364, 178 so. 412, the holding in such previous case is hereby overruled and receded from to the extent of such conflict.",1204
"since mcburney was erroneously decided, that interpretation of the statute was also incorrect.",1205
(quotations and citations omitted).,1206
"further, we no longer adhere to the view of ianniello and its progeny that relationship and continuity are necessary characteristics of a rico enterprise.",1207
"had juror c.b. revealed her prior experiences and disposition toward those experiences, any competent counsel would have struck her from the jury with a peremptory challenge.",1208
"2017) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted), cert. denied, 138 s. ct. 983 (2018).",1209
"the apa provides that judicial review is available for """"final agency action[s] for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.""""",1210
"attorney for appellant  rory gallaghermarion county public defenderindianapolis, indiana  attorneys for appellee  curtis t. hill, jr.attorney general of indiana  ian mcleandeputy attorney generalindianapolis, indiana    appeal from the marion superior court  the honorable david hooper, magistrate  trial court cause no. 49g12-1610-cm-39839  bailey, judge.",1211
"we respectfully disagree with our colleague's finding on this point, though our decision is based on the trial record rather than the summary judgment record.",1212
"accordingly, we overrule turner to the extent it holds that intent to kill is an element of the multiple-murder special circumstance, and adopt the following reading of the relevant statutory provisions: intent to kill is not an element of the multiple-murder special circumstance; but when the defendant is an aider and abetter rather than the actual killer, intent must be proved.",1213
"nonetheless, we must recede from williams v. state, 427 so.2d 768 (fla. 2d dca 1983), and matthews v. state, 584 so.2d 1105 (fla. 2d dca 1991), to the extent that these opinions engraft a ""fair trial"" standard upon the faretta test, and we disapprove steps four through six of the faretta inquiry in jones v. state, 658 so.2d 122 (fla. 2d dca 1995) (altenbernd, j., specially concurring), which relied upon williams and matthews.",1214
"to the extent that walsh v. local board 10, 305 f.supp. 1274 (s.d. n.y. 1969), construed ""academic year"" to mean the 12 month period following the beginning of the registrant's course of study, we disapprove that construction.",1215
"rather, discrimination results from denying an available and reasonable accommodation.",1216
"to the extent that the court of appeals held in hart v. state, 319 ga.app. 749, 738 s.e.2d 331 (2013), that a paraprofessional is a ""teacher"" for purposes of ocga  16-6-5.1",1217
"it seems clear that in this respect the act was meant to and did overrule such cases as ree v. state, 565 so.2d 1329 (fla. 1990) and pierre v. state.",1218
"to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion, state v. werner, 810 s.w.2d 621, 626 (mo.app. 1991) is overruled.",1219
"consistent with this reasoning a number of jurisdictions have abandoned the acceptance rule in favor of what has been described as the so-called ""modern rule"" or ""foreseeability doctrine.""",1220
the court of appeals therefore erred when it employed a treating physician rule lacking department of labor endorsement in holding that nord was entitled to summary judgment.,1221
we therefore overrule brady to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion.,1222
"therefore, our holding in chaney is overruled.",1223
"to the extent they are inconsistent with views expressed in this opinion hamm v. city of santa ana, supra, 273 cal.app.2d 84 and people v. marsh, supra, 30 cal.app. 424 are disapproved.",1224
we disapprove of statements in two opinions of this court that the limitations for sexual assault of a child is five years.,1225
"to the extent that these decisions may support the proposition for which they are here cited, i.e., that a final rejection of claims in a parent application for lack of supporting disclosure therein is res judicata upon the question of whether different claims, rejected on a different basis in a continuation application, are entitled under the conditions specified in 35 u.s.c.  120 to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the parent application, they are expressly overruled.",1226
"applying that standard, i am convinced that fenton erred.",1227
"as such, he was entitled to immunity as previously discussed.",1228
"the record reflects that defendant asserted his innocence at the outset, ultimately rejecting an offer from the prosecution for him to plead guilty to second-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), mcl 750.227b(1).",1229
insofar as davis conflicts with this opinion it is overruled.,1230
"by agreeing with labonte, we implicitly overruled that portion of r.w. roberts that cited approvingly the new york case of arcata graphics corp. v. silin, 59 a.d.2d 1007 (1977), which held an arbitration provision void for lack of mutuality of obligation.",1231
"state v. brown (1988), 38 ohio st.3d 305, 308.' * * * state v. coley (2001), 93 ohio st.3d 253, 261."""" state v. griffiths, 11th dist. trumbull no. 2000-t-0131, 2002 wl 5307, *2 (dec. 28, 2001).",1232
"accordingly, we overrule united states v. steele, 413 f.2d 967 (1969) to the extent that it holds that the plea must be vacated rather than remanding the case for a hearing where it appears that the necessary finding might be made by the district court.",1233
"any contrary statements in keller v. key system transit lines, 129 cal.app.2d 593, 598 [ 277 p.2d 869], and people v. graney, 48 cal.app. 773 [ 129 p. 460], are disapproved.",1234
"bank of the united states v. bank of georgia, 10 wheaton, 347; thompson v. riggs, 5 wallace, 678; robinson v. noble, 8 peters, 198; wright v. reid, 3 term, 554; snow v. perry, 9 pickering, 542; 2 greenleaf on evidence,  601.",1235
"the court of appeal's statement that an acknowledgment must be coupled with a clear declaration of intent to interrupt prescription is apparently culled without attribution from stagni, supra, which in turn cites to marathon, supra, the case that was expressly overruled by this court in lima.",1236
"id. at 581, citing pappas, supra at 431.",1237
"in shapiro, the seventh circuit stated, 383 f.2d at 685, that it preferred the ali rule to other possible formulae on the ground that it resulted in a charge shorter, simpler, and more congruent to the expert testimony than the charge based on davis v. united states, 165 u.s. 373, 17 s.ct. 360, 41 l.ed. 750 (1897), which was a traditional test and itself based on m'naghten; it found the ali test more comprehensible than durham and more helpful to the jury.",1238
"we expressly overrule baird v. cincinnati, new orleans texas pacific r. co., ky., 368 s.w.2d 172, and our cases cited therein to the extent they hold that a wife has no cause of action for loss of consortium of her husband resulting from injury to him due to the negligent act of another.",1239
"to the extent that apodaca can be read to suggest otherwise, it should not be followed.",1240
he also complains that siriani did not warn him that he could be personally liable for those fees if they were not paid by the estate.,1241
nor does simply having not yet had occasion to exercise one's authority under a power of attorney equate to a declination to serve.,1242
"see bentley v. bunton, 94 s.w.3d 561, 581 (tex. 2002); see also isaacks, 146 s.w.3d at 156-57.",1243
"as the united states supreme court has observed, the crawford rule is flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent, roberts, which crawford overruled.",1244
payne is disapproved for two reasons.,1245
"a later case, blackwell v. hustler magazine, inc., 633 f. supp. 870, 871 (s.d.miss.",1246
we disapprove the contrary view expressed by the third district court of appeal in fontainebleau hotel corp. v. united filigree corp.,1247
"to the extent those decisions can be read as being in tension with our holding, they necessarily are disapproved.",1248
"although the majority did not address the continued viability of vogel, it has effectively been overruled.",1249
"we reject gaskill's facial constitutional challenges based on due process and ex post facto grounds on the same basis we rejected these challenges in state v. harris,  284 neb. 214, 817 n.w.2d 258 (2012), generally for the reasons that his due process challenge is not before us and the statutes at issue were either prospective or not punitive and thus not violative of ex post facto principles.",1250
"the department need not prove all of the holley factors as a """"condition precedent"""" to termination, and the absence of some factors does not bar the factfinder from finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in a child's best interest.",1251
"id.  8(f)(i); see also br. in support of ans. to pet. to open, 1/21/16, at 1-2 (unpaginated) (alleging that on december 30, 2014, chief julian tried to """"persuade and bully [mr. burrelli] into filing a 'settlement paper' in return for copies of [the department's] 'investigation'"""").",1252
insofar as they are so inconsistent they are overruled.,1253
"because it needed only to """"briefly set forth"""" the draft permit's factual and theoretical underpinnings, see 40 c.f.r.  124.8(a), the fact sheet's comparative brevity cannot alone be indicative of any illegitimate additions to the response to comments.",1254
"when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the well-established standards of review.",1255
"since the last time we considered the rule in trig electric, other jurisdictions, including the ninth circuit court of appeals, have consistently held that these types of state claims are not preempted by erisa.",1256
"state v. saldierna, 242 n.c. app. 347, 353, 775 s.e.2d 326, 330 (2015) (saldierna i). in addition, defendant contended that the trial court had failed to """"appropriately consider his juvenile status in determining that his waiver of rights was knowing and voluntary.""""",1257
"moreover, our conclusion today is not intended to alter an insured's ability to assign his or her right to past or presently due benefits to a healthcare provider.",1258
we hereby abrogate our expression of the malicious prosecution elements set out in raine v. drasin in favor of the following articulation.,1259
"""""based on these medical reports and the testimony before it, the board of appeals was unable to conclude or find as a matter of fact that eberle's permanent disability"""" was the natural and proximate result of his workplace accidents required for him to receive accidental disability retirement benefits.",1260
our analysis of the merger issue requires us to disapprove one of our published opinions because it is irreconcilable with a subsequent opinion of our supreme court.,1261
id. at 259-60.,1262
"however, we now take the opportunity to overrule lumpkin and carr and their progeny, to the extent that these cases characterize the notice requirements set out in section 11-46-11 as jurisdictional requirements.",1263
bradford and hollingsworth are overruled to the extent that they hold that  5g1.2(d) is discretionary and that remand is necessary where the apprendi violation can be cured by running sentences consecutively under that section.,1264
"in light of the test set forth in brown, supra, it is readily apparent that the language in branch and draper is no longer valid, therefore we expressly overrule the aforementioned language contained in branch and draper.",1265
"the mother did not respond, and the maternal grandmother picked up the children and kept them """"all summer.""""",1266
we overrule abril to the extent that it relied on the abrogated common law principle of inherent jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences.,1267
"however, in a footnote, the district court certified conflict with the third district's decision in gevertz, stating that ""[t]o the extent thatgevertz . . . holds that the contract rate of interest is applicable to both prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates, with respect, we believe that gevertz is wrongly decided.",1268
"spencer's case, supra, is overruled.",1269
"in the instant case, defendant filed a motion requesting, inter alia, primary custody of lauren and modification of the existing visitation terms and provisions, due to issues that had arisen following entry of the first modification order. after a hearing, the trial court concluded, in relevant part:",1270
people v. laiwa is not overruled (same line of cases).,1271
we disapprove of those courts of appeals' decisions holding that this error is harmless if any evidence supports a properly submitted liability theory.,1272
"rather, by en banc opinion, we recede from a portion of our earlier decision in allstate insurance co. v. sutton, 707 so.2d 760 (fla. 2d dca 1998), and deny mr. king's motion for attorneys' fees.",1273
"thus, given our determination that the evans per se rule of error offends the deference traditionally accorded the trial court's conduct of voir dire and is virtually unlimited in its application, we hereby overrule evans and subsequent cases extending its holding.",1274
in accordance with the court's internal rules this opinion was circulated to the court en banc and a majority have approved overruling the roberts case.,1275
"we reject this per se rule as inconsistent with strickland's holding that ""the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.",1276
"1980) was to the contrary, it was overruled.",1277
"here, the analyst statement provides an example of how forgery and identity theft convictions must have been made """"in connection with"""" each other to preclude relief under proposition 47. ",1278
"to the extent the plaintiffs had suggested there must be a defect because of the """"high"""" incidence of repair, """"they allege[d] no facts that give meaning to the term 'high.'""""",1279
"erie repudiated the holding of swift v. tyson, 16 pet. 1 (1842), that federal courts were free to ""express our own opinion"" upon ""the principles established in the general commercial law.",1280
a trial court must give an instruction sua sponte on an uncharged lesser offense that is necessarily included in a greater charged offense if the evidence warrants the instruction.,1281
"having previously granted certiorari, we overrule the opinion of the court of appeals rendered in mullins v. john zink co., 733 p.2d 888 (okla.app. 1986), and affirm the opinion of the court of appeals herein.",1282
we disapprove that decision to the extent it implies that parties to all dissolution proceedings involving minor children have an absolute privacy right to seal the file.,1283
"accordingly, we expressly overrule any cases that hold to the contrary.",1284
this rule is a by product of the hands-on approach to reviewing jewell cases we eschew today and does not survive our opinion.,1285
he also claims that the district court erred when it rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.,1286
"we disapprove any implication in nerell v. superior court (1971) 20 cal.app.3d 593, 597 [ 97 cal.rptr. 702]; people v. malich (1971) 15 cal.app.3d 253, 265, footnote 4 [ 93 cal.rptr. 87]; and people v. vega (1970) 12 cal.app.3d 970, 972 [ 91 cal.rptr. 167], that section 1538.5 evidences a legislative intent that a defendant who applies for pretrial writ review of a denial of his motion to suppress evidence alleged to be wrongfully obtained forgoes his right to ""seek further review of the validity of a search or seizure on appeal from a conviction.""",1287
"e.d. tenn. 2013); in re crosby, 261 b.r. 470, 472 (bankr.",1288
"we therefore disapprove wickersham's inaccurate assertion that ""unreasonable self-defense"" is a ""defense.",1289
"we conclude that these decisions were erroneous and must be overturned, but that tracts of land granted by the board that have been improved or filled are, to the degree hereinafter described, free of the public trust.",1290
"we overrule taylor v. knox county board of education, 292 ky. 767, 167 s.w.2d 700 (1942), and board of education of rockcastle county v. kirby, 926 s.w.2d 455 (ky. 1996), to the extent that they hold that krs 161.310 provides a waiver of a board of education's governmental immunity.",1291
"to the extent any georgia court of appeals opinions hold that the municipal ante litem notice statute applies to claims other than negligence claims, they are overruled.",1292
"for the reasons explained here, our decision in echols is overruled, and riley's conviction and sentence are affirmed.",1293
we disagree with the state's contentions and disapprove williams to the extent that it conflicts with this decision.,1294
"higgins v. am. nat'l gen. ins. co., 01-193 (la. app. 5 cir. 9/25/01); 798 so.2d 1078, 1083.",1295
"heinhuis v. venture assoc., 558 so.2d 1244 (la.app. 1st cir. 1990), is expressly overruled.",1296
"however, in our opinion, the loustalot case should be overruled for the reason that it misinterprets the decision of the supreme court in edwards v. royal indemnity company, 182 la. 171, 161 so. 191, where a different result was reached.",1297
"even if we interpret lockhart wrongly, we find that lockhart was overruled, albeit sub silentio, by the supreme court's adoption of the commission of appeals' judgment in kennerly.",1298
this case provides an illustrative example of exactly why we erred in brown and an opportunity for us to align firearm enhancements with the rest of our sentencing jurisprudence.,1299
we disapprove miller to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.,1300
"blue diamond coal co. v. meade, supra, is overruled to the extent that it implies that an award or settlement may be reopened on the ground of mistake in every case where a claimant is able to demonstrate that he was entitled to more compensation than he actually got at the time of his settlement or award.",1301
453 md. at 198.,1302
"1984); colvin v. state , 431 so.2d 1134, 1136 (miss.",1303
"see state v. white (white i), 815 p.2d 869 (ariz.",1304
"in this connection, to the extent that our holding conflicts with this court's decision of dugard v. state, 688 s.w.2d 524 (tex.cr.app. 1985), dugard is expressly overruled.",1305
"to the extent hays v. arave, 977 f.2d 475 (9th cir. 1992), on which the panel relied in reaching the opposite conclusion, is inconsistent with our analysis, it is hereby overruled.",1306
"in re billie y., supra, 220 cal.app.3d 127, in re francisco n., supra, 186 cal.app.3d 175, in re richard t., supra, 175 cal.app.3d 248, and shortridge v. municipal court, supra, 151 cal.app.3d 611, are disapproved to the extent they are inconsistent with our decision in this case.",1307
"here, the misdemeanor and   felony convictions are intertwined to the point that the interests of justice may be better served by considering the matters together.",1308
"accordingly, insofar as any statement in mcnemar relative to faline may be irreconcilable with our conclusions herein, such statement is hereby overruled.",1309
"accordingly, we overrule white v. stewarts dry goods co., reaffirm palmore v. jones, supra, and hold that the reasoning expressed in palmore applies as well to krs 342.750 as to krs 342.730(3).",1310
"the report showed that, in cook county, the average lapse of time between the date of filing to the date of verdict, was 37.5 months, and that the average time between the date of filing to the date of verdict in st. clair county was 36.6 months.",1311
"the judgment also declared that if that amount was not paid by january 27, 2017, the home would be sold at a   judicial auction.",1312
his case overruled an earlier california case of long-standing which had distinguished pension rights on the basis of whether the rights had vested,1313
"language in people v. oxnam, supra, 170 cal. 211, people v. keyes, supra, 178 cal. 794, and people v. fisher, supra, 49 cal.app.3d 174, inconsistent with this opinion is disapproved.",1314
"people v. reid, 136 ill. 2d 27, 38 (1990).",1315
"the process begins with an application for involuntary admission made by an interested person, accompanied by certifications of two health care providers that the individual meets the statutory criteria, and ends with a hearing before an impartial hearing officer to determine whether the criteria are in fact satisfied.",1316
"to the extent hanley suggests abatement of a california action is mandatory rather than discretionary, where there is a prior action pending between the same parties in a foreign jurisdiction, we disavow it.",1317
"to the extent that they are inconsistent with the supreme court's holding, thus overruled is a line of decisions by this court which had previously upheld the validity of the cited court of appeal rule on the question, including:",1318
"in response to hughes , we have overruled the killingsworth procedure and substituted the following procedure:",1319
"however, we take this occasion to disapprove of our decision in kenai peninsula insofar as it would bar the rule 60(b) motion in the case at bar.",1320
"the rps sent a letter to ms. holman, dated october 29, 2013, notifying her of the medical board's decision and informing her that she may submit a written request for reconsideration within 30 days or else it would close her file and terminate her disability claim pursuant to code of maryland regulations (""""comar"""") 22.06.03.03c(4).",1321
"see n.c. gen. stat.  7b-201(a) (2017); see also n.c. gen. stat.  7b-1000(b) (""""in any case where the court finds the juvenile to be . . . dependent, the jurisdiction of the court to modify any order or disposition made in the case shall continue during the minority of the juvenile, until terminated by order of the court, or until the juvenile is otherwise emancipated.""""). respondent-father was and is free to file a motion in the cause to modify the conditions of his visitation with diana.",1322
"therefore, we approve the decision under review and disapprove the holding in in re forfeiture of 1978 bmw that an innocent co-owner's interest in property is forfeited along with the guilty co-owner's interest.",1323
"see id., at 1683-1685, and n. 44; bottomley, patent cases in the court of chancery, 1714-58, 35 j. legal hist. 27, 36-37, 41-43 (2014).",1324
"two courts of appeals have concluded that an appeal should not be allowed in this situation, and to that extent, we disapprove them.",1325
"further, for the sake of clarity and consistency, we overrule earthgrains v. cranz",1326
"we now recede from the language in blacker stating that a minimum mandatory sentence cannot be imposed upon a defendant, initially sentenced as a youthful offender, who later substantively violates probation or community control.",1327
"as we explained earlier, md. rule 8-131(a) requires a party to make """"'timely objections in the lower court,'"""" or """"'he[/she] will be considered to have waived them and he[/she] cannot now raise such objections on appeal.'"""" breakfield, 195 md. app. at 390, 6 a.3d at 388 (quoting caviness, 244 md. at 578, 224 a.2d at 418).",1328
"see abelesz v. magyar nemzeti bank, 692 f.3d 661, 671, 678-86, 694-95 (7th cir. 2012).",1329
the evidence supporting termination under one of the grounds listed in section 161.001(b)(1) can also be considered in support of a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child.,1330
. hacker,1331
appellant did not commit the completed offense of human trafficking of a minor because the alleged victim of this crime was not a person under the age of 18.,1332
"thus, to the extent the language in baltins v. james, supra, 36 cal.app.3d 1193, can be read as implying that ""actual injury"" is determined by any bright line rule, we disapprove that language.",1333
"at the more general level, we must examine the disjunctive list of drug  types - e.g., cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine - covered by california law.",1334
"another court even ruled """"that a man acquitted for stealing the horse hath yet been arraigned and convict for stealing the saddle, tho both were done at the same time."""" 2 hale, supra, at 246.",1335
"this analysis is not inconsistent with dudewicz v norris-schmid, 443 mich. 68, 78-80; 503 nw2d 645 (1993).",1336
we disapprove the decision in mierzwa.,1337
"it necessarily follows that our holding in the flye case on the point now under consideration was incorrect, and we now hereby recede therefrom.",1338
"in this case, like winnebago and contrary to tyson foods, employer's admission played a substantial role in the case's disposition.",1339
"accordingly, hance v. haun, supra, is overruled.",1340
"any language contained in snyder, supra, however, which might be read as indicating that rezoning is not legislative for the purpose of exercising the constitutional powers of referendum and initiative is hereby expressly overruled.",1341
"lori swanson, attorney general, st. paul, minnesota; and jonathan d. frieden, hubbard county attorney, park rapids, minnesota (for respondent) cathryn middlebrook, chief appellate public defender, sara j. euteneuer, assistant public defender, st. paul, minnesota (for appellant)",1342
"however, in both these cases, the children had a permanent, stable home with their biological mothers, and there was """"no expectation that they would ever be put up for adoption""""; thus, termination of these fathers' parental rights was not warranted.",1343
"in any event, to the extent lee suggested that the statute authorizes the state to conduct ex parte interrogations after charges have been brought, that case is disapproved.",1344
"bennett v. appaloosa horse club, 201 ariz. 372, 375,  11 (app. 2001).",1345
"therefore,  39-17-417 is divisible among the various subsections with respect to drug type and quantity, and the record documents further make clear that petitioner was convicted of violating subsections (a)(4) and (g)(2), see ar 821-825, which only apply to possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell between ten and seventy pounds of marijuana.",1346
"when asked by the court if she wanted to testify, light answered: """"yeah - i mean - all i want to say is he didn't do it.""""",1347
"we are aware of govan v. state, 682 s.w.2d 567 (tex.cr.app. 1985), holding an objection such as the instant one to be sufficient to preserve error, but govan appears to be an aberration, and is overruled to the extent of any conflict.",1348
we therefore overrule leonard and palmer.,1349
"for the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal maintaining the plea of prescription in favor of american home assurance company as the state's insuror is reversed and the prescriptive plea is overruled.",1350
"to the extent that cases such as in re chabot, supra, 100 b.r. 18, take an approach in contradiction to that expressed here, they are disapproved by the panel.",1351
"to the extent that the main opinions in edwards, giardina, and similar cases hold to the contrary, they are overruled.",1352
"although she could not recall exactly where he put his penis, she explained it happened so frequently that it was either her vagina or butt.",1353
"see also figgins v. cochrane, 403 md. 392, 409 (2008) (""""if any competent material evidence exists in support of the trial court's factual findings, those findings cannot be held to be clearly erroneous."""")",1354
"to the extent that this opinion conflicts with kilpatrick v. state, 622 so.2d 1032 (fla. 2d dca 1993), we recede from kilpatrick.",1355
"o whatever other extent the language in jahoda conflicts with our decision herein or that rendered by the district court of appeal, first district, at 265 so.2d 425, it is hereby expunged.",1356
"as justice donohue points out, several non-expert witnesses testified at trial that they saw or heard gunshots.",1357
"app. 1985), is overruled.",1358
"accordingly, we disavow language in brace and gallagher suggesting that because a public employee's claim of immunity is not a claim of sovereign immunity, its determination is not subject to interlocutory review.",1359
"we therefore disapprove the second district's failure to distinguish determinate and indeterminate commitments in requiring credit in e.r., but approve the fourth district's requirement of credit on determinate sentences in l.k., j.b., and c.c.",1360
"capital argues that the board erred in relying on its previous decision in town & country supermarkets, which, in capital's view, was inadequately reasoned and materially distinguishable in its treatment of picketing.",1361
"id. at 359-60; see also bukowski v. city of akron, 326 f.3d 702, 710 (6th cir. 2003).",1362
"see in re patillo, 32 s.w.3d 907, 910 (tex. app.corpus christi 2000, orig. proceeding) (striking portions of contempt order requiring relator to remain incarcerated until he pays costs that relator was not actually held in contempt for failing to pay).",1363
"accordingly, lee v. peerless insurance company is overruled.",1364
"see grimes, 804 a.2d at 266 (holding that """"to the extent such transactions obligate the board concerning stock issuance, the board must approve them in writing"""") (emphasis added).",1365
"for the reasons detailed here and to the extent auxier is inconsistent with this opinion, we overrule it.",1366
"we therefore disapprove people v. bullwinkle (1980) supra, 105 cal.app.3d 82, 86-90, and a dictum in people v. longwill",1367
"specifically, the state argued the construct distorted the meaning of ""proof beyond a reasonable doubt,"" and continued the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence which we disavowed in hankins v. state.",1368
"furthermore, because a victim of statutory rape cannot be charged with that offense, and thus does not qualify as an accomplice under the general accomplice rule, we specifically overrule all decisions of our court of criminal appeals requiring corroboration of the testimony of victims of statutory rape.",1369
"thus, to the extent that rodgers holds that the trial court must enter a nunc pro tunc order to extend the time to appeal for ten days under cr 73.02(1)(d)",1370
we find that the failure of the trial court to enter the necessary affirmative finding as to the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon is a clerical error; we overrule creeks to the extent of any conflict,1371
b,1372
"exxon corp. v. department of conservation & natural res., 859 so.2d 1096, 1102 (ala.2002) (quoting bolden v. slosssheffield steel & iron co., 215 ala. 334, 340, 110 so. 574, 580 (1925) (somerville, j., dissenting)).",1373
"it has been claimed, for instance, that the predictions of experts are little better than chance.",1374
"suarez-quilty also clearly acknowledged her unauthorized use of the credit card in her stipulation, admitting she violated rule 32:8.4(c) by committing the acts alleged in count vii (unauthorized use of credit card) of the board's complaint.",1375
"respondent clark failed to timely file a brief on appeal within the mandatory time limits of rule 84.05. pursuant to rule 84.05(a), clark was required to file a responsive brief on april 30, 2018, thirty days after the filing of kinsey's brief.",1376
we thus overrule bellard.,1377
"see generally lancaster cty. bar ass'n v. s.c. comm'n on indigent def., 380 s.c. 219, 222, 670 s.e.2d 371, 373 (2008) (stating the appellate court will reject a construction of a statute that leads to an absurd result not intended by the legislature).",1378
"while the chappells acknowledge that the note stated that the monthly payments would increase after 60 months, they emphasize that the note further specified that the bank would provide notice of the increase as a condition precedent to instituting foreclosure proceedings.",1379
"accordingly, we disapprove of thomas to the extent it is inconsistent with watson.",1380
"in which the court of appeals erroneously applied the reasoning of millette, incorrectly applying the three-year statute where a plaintiff sought to recover land he allegedly was fraudulently induced to convey.",1381
"we overrule division 2 in ghrist v. fricks and division 2 in matthews v. dukes, 314 ga.app. 782, 726 s.e.2d 95 (2012), to the extent they determined that the superior court had jurisdiction to sever parental rights because the termination issue was ancillary to the biological father's petition to legitimate.",1382
"bego v. gordon, 407 n.w.2d 801, 804 (s.d. 1987).",1383
"the court also specifically ordered defendant to """"be subject to all administrative or judicial enforcement remedies available to the plaintiff as prescribed by state and federal law in a title iv-d case[.]""""",1384
##note: people v. segura reversed not overruled.,1385
"we determine whether a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy on a """"case-by-case basis, considering the facts of each particular situation.""""",1386
"courts must construe briefs """"reasonably yet liberally.""""",1387
"id. at  17-18, citing douglas, 135 ohio st. at 647-48, 22 n.e.2d 195; stone v. phillips, 9th dist. summit no. 15908, 1993 wl 303281, *3 (aug. 11, 1993); and de garza v. chetister, 62 ohio app.2d 149, 155, 405 n.e.2d 331 (6th dist.1978).",1388
"see tr., vol. 2 at 99.",1389
"since the holding in dade federal is to the contrary, that decision is overruled.",1390
"we agree with the district court that the political question doctrine bars the servicemembers' suit. therefore, we need not reach the ftca preemption issue.",1391
"consequently, failing to perform, or failing to perform competently, under a contract cannot itself give rise to tort liability, but if the same conduct violates an independently existing duty, the fact that it constitutes a breach of contract does not preclude tort liability.",1392
"the components of the second inquirycompetency and complexityare """"necessarily intertwined,"""" id. at 655, but the district court must still address both elements, id. at 649, 55. though """"we have resisted laying down categorical rules regarding recruitment of counsel,"""" id. at 656, (and we continue to do so in this case), we have previously held that a district court abuses its discretion when it does not take note of """"certain circumstances [that] demand particular judicial consideration.""""",1393
"based on the foregoing reasoning, we approve the second district's holding in c.e.l. and disapprove of the third district's opinion in d.t.b.",1394
"""""our court has repeatedly noted the doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply to section 822.3."""" larimer v. state, no. 17-0276, 2018 wl 739301, at *1 n.1 (iowa ct. app. feb. 7, 2018) (application for further review seeking recognition of equitable tolling denied apr. 4, 2018).",1395
"whether or not """"under"""" and """"arising out of"""" carry different meanings, neither supports the """"but for"""" construction.",1396
on these principles the holding of the guidry case cannot be approved.,1397
we disagree with the premise of knowles's argument suggesting that the ptab's claim construction conflicts with mems technology.,1398
"this action is premised on smythe's activities driving for lyft, and has nothing to do with his """"identity"""" as a driver for uber.",1399
"further, we hereby overrule state v. harbert, 758 p.2d 826 (okla.",1400
"but a rule in which this court """"ma[de] a certain fact essential to the death penalty ... would be substantive""""; it would change the range of conduct warranting a death sentence.",1401
"the dissent contends that ""the majority has chosen to recede from johnson without conducting a stare decisis analysis and without acknowledging that it is receding from our precedent.",1402
"7 here, in 2010, the mpo policy committee adopted a long-range metropolitan transportation plan, which apparently also encompassed a short-range forecast, called the """"go to 2040"""" plan, which the chicago metro planning agency board likewise determined would serve as its comprehensive regional plan. according to a federal report, the """"go to 2040"""" was chicago's first comprehensive regional plan in more than 100 years, addressing an array of issues like transportation, housing, economic development, open space, the environment, and quality-of-life matters in the region's 284 communities.",1403
"crim. app. june 18, 1999).",1404
"if the defendant is a natural person at least 18 years of age or emancipated by court order, by:",1405
"(citing friend, 375 f. app'x at 551)).",1406
"for example, disposition reports routinely set forth the circumstances of the offense as described in the police report including witness statements and the minor's statement.",1407
"after considering the aba's standards for imposing lawyer sanctions, the committee determined that the baseline sanction is suspension.",1408
"we therefore find that the cases relied on by the defense, state v. adams, 533 so.2d 1060 (la.app. 4th cir. 1988), and state v. porter, 615 so.2d 507 (la.app. 3d cir. 1993) (dictum only), are overruled.",1409
"we therefore overrule our decision in jones v. wfyr radio/rko general, supra, and hold in this case that an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel is not immediately appealable, but may be reviewed only on appeal from a final judgment.",1410
"to the extent it is inconsistent with our opinion in the present case, we disapprove the court's decision in in re phelon.",1411
{27} appellant's assignments of error are overruled.,1412
"to date, appellant has neither filed a brief nor communicated with the court regarding the appeals.",1413
prior cases holding otherwise are hereby overruled.,1414
"to the extent this court's decisions in jones and bun suggested otherwise, they are hereby disapproved.",1415
"according to deposition testimony from a staff member of the harrison county assessor's office, the mineral interest had been   previously assessed on the personal property books rather than the landbooks and was made based on a gas producer's report of income paid to the harry p. cross estate from production of the oil and gas. new landbook assessments were made in 1990 for """"richard andrews, agent"""" of """".0764% int. 150 ac leased o & g (alamco) a-774;"""" """"andrews, richard snowden hrs."""" of """" int. leased o&g eastern american (8243 c andrews); and """"saunders, phyllis fletcher"""" of """"0.2244 int. 271.67 as leased o&g sycamore (cng dev 2088).",1416
"horne was then hired for the position and began on september 29, 2014.",1417
we recede from beaver to the extent that it holds that once any aspect of an insurance controversy is before a court that no other aspect of the controversy may be decided by arbitration.,1418
"for that reason, we will assume that trial counsel performed unreasonably when they failed to object to these statements.",1419
"now, en banc, we overrule bailey and hold that lumpkin does not apply retroactively.",1420
"we consider this case en banc in order to recede from this court's opinion in williams v. state, 409 so.2d 253 (fla. 4th dca),rev. denied, 417 so.2d 331 (fla. 1982) to the extent that it conflicts with our decision here.",1421
the court held that the fifth amendment due process clause gave her a damages remedy,1422
. rognrud,1423
they argue that the beard case was exceptional because it involved maximum security inmates and that the prison's regulations were motivated by its rehabilitative goals.,1424
"see jaghory v. new york state dep't of educ., 131 f.3d 326, 329 (2d cir. 1997).",1425
"the state objected to this statement, and the trial court sustained the objection, but the state never requested that the jury be instructed to disregard her testimony.",1426
we disapprove the cases that have reached a contrary result.,1427
"accordingly, the holdings on this point in state ex rel. nelson v. sims and state ex rel. west v. kivett are overruled to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.",1428
"further, the easement is silent with regard to its use for commercial purposes; it does not expressly permit or prohibit them.",1429
"child support calculations """"are ordinarily based upon recent past circumstances because past circumstances are typically a reliable indicator of future circumstances, particularly circumstances concerning income.""""",1430
"to the extent that notarfonzo v. kline, 464 so.2d 656, 657-58 (fla. 4th dca 1985), can be read for the proposition that the uccja does not apply to custody and shared parental responsibility issues in a paternity action, we recede from it.",1431
"to the extent that the huffman opinion may be in conflict herewith, it is overruled.",1432
we disapprove cooper and craven to the extent that they may be read to conflict.,1433
we disapprove the cases that have reached conflicting decisions.,1434
federal rule 33(d) is normally discussed in the context of a party's invocation of the rule in response to an interrogatory and a subsequent challenge to the sufficiency of that response by the requesting party through a motion to compel discovery.,1435
"however, on occasion the court has declined to adopt legislative changes to the evidence code because of significant concerns about the amendments, including concerns about the constitutionality of an amendment.",1436
"e.g., farmers ins. exchange v. adams (1985) 170 cal.app.3d 712, 722 [216 cal.rptr. 287] (dicta); premier ins. co. v. welch (1983) 140 cal.app.3d 720, 728 [189 cal.rptr. 657]; safeco ins. co. of america v. guyton (9th cir. 1982) 692 f.2d 551, 554-555.",1437
we disapprove of rollenhagen to the extent that it states a public-interest privilege applicable against private figures.,1438
"we believe, to the contrary, that the supreme court silently retracted the anderson dictum in ennis v. state, 95 so.2d 20 (fla. 1957), cert. den., 355 u.s. 868, 78 s.ct. 117, 2 l.ed.2d 74 (1957) and held, as did state v. yarboro, 194 n.c. 498, 140 s.e. 216 (1927) and state v. avery, 111 kan. 588, 207 p. 838 (1922) under comparable statutes, that a conviction under section 832.05 may be had absent proof of an intent to defraud.",1439
"on the contrary, what impresses me is the obduracy of high-minded state courts, like that of new york under the leadership of judge cardozo, in refusing to adopt the federal rule of exclusion.",1440
"id.  717f(e). once ferc makes that required finding and issues a """"certificate of public convenience and necessity"""" (""""certificate""""), a pipeline company can begin construction.",1441
and the warrant also clearly authorized the officers to perform a forensic search of the cell phones.,1442
"to the extent larose is inconsistent with this holding, it is overruled.",1443
"1987), it is overruled.",1444
"balow is in direct conflict with at least two recent court of appeals cases, brown v. state, 810 s.w.2d 716, 718 (mo.app. 1991), and rogers v. state, 810 s.w.2d 125 (mo.app. 1991).",1445
"we have concluded that sheehan should be overruled and that the opinion of the court of appeal prepared by justice bray and concurred in by presiding justice pierce and justice regan, as modified, correctly treats and disposes of the constitutional question presented.",1446
"because we agree with gordon that the rule of lenity applies, we reverse the trial court's ruling, and in doing so overrule reese, which was wrongly decided on this issue.",1447
"but we disavow jose m.'s reasoning with respect to (1) its distinguishing the significance of adoption in private versus state-initiated severance cases, and (2) its assessing the benefits of adoption solely in terms of whether the child's ""day-to-day"" living arrangement will change.",1448
"for further criticism of the opinion in the gobitis case by persons who do not share the faith of the witnesses see: powell, conscience and the constitution, in democracy and national unity (university of chicago press, 1941) 1; wilkinson, some aspects of the constitutional guarantees of civil liberty, 11 fordham law review 50; fennell, the """"reconstructed court"""" and religious freedom: the gobitis case in retrospect, 19 new york university law quarterly review 31; green, liberty under the fourteenth amendment, 27 washington university law quarterly 497; 9 international juridical association bulletin 1; 39 michigan law review 149; 15 st. john's law review 95.",1449
 14 a trial court's sentencing decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.,1450
"to the extent that barnes can be read to permit a direct appeal from an adjudicative agency decision reviewed by the superior court within the meaning of  5-6-35 (a) (1), it is hereby disapproved.",1451
"to the extent that warren is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled.",1452
"insofar as dictum in landau v. fording (1966) 245 cal.app.2d 820, 824, 830 [ 54 cal.rptr. 177], affd. per curiam (1967) 387 u.s. 456 [ 18 l.ed.2d 1317, 87 s.ct. 2109], suggests a contrary reading of the california statutes, it is hereby disapproved.",1453
"we overruled his assignments of error and affirmed in state v. beverly, 2016-ohio-8078, 75 n.e.3d 847 (2d dist.).",1454
we recede from these cases to the extent that they suggest that postconviction relief is appropriate where the record does not demonstrate that an actually biased juror served on the jury.,1455
"as this holding departs to greater or less degree from the decisions listed in the second paragraph of this opinion, the latter must be deemed to that extent no longer controlling.",1456
"see, e.g., n. y. c. rules & regs., tit. 1, 27-01 (2018) (requiring signs by elevators showing stair locations); san francisco dept. of health, director's rules & regs., garbage and refuse (july 8, 2010) (requiring property owners to inform tenants about garbage disposal procedures).",1457
32 for a time we articulated a standard formulation of waiver that did not mention any requirement of proof of prejudice.,1458
we quash the decision below and remand for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.,1459
"in any case, mhs rests its personal jurisdiction assertion against collins on the """"conspiracy theory"""" of jurisdiction, which requires the plaintiff to plead an unlawful act and a conspiracy to commit that unlawful act.",1460
"finally, agerbrink argues that the contract is unenforceable because msa is an illegal employment agency under new york law. but, as noted above, the court has already rejected this claim in a prior opinion.",1461
"to the extent that the plaintiffs intended to raise a different claim, it is not readily discernible from their brief, and, therefore, we decline to engage in further review on the basis of an   inadequate brief.",1462
"in state v. berber, 48 wash. app. 583, 584-85 (wash.",1463
"to the extent graham, in re s.h. (1),and in re s.h. (2) are in conflict with this decision, they are overruled.",1464
"el apple i, ltd. v. olivas, 370 s.w.3d 757, 761 (tex. 2012); blackstone medical, inc. v. phoenix surgicals, l.l.c., 470 s.w.3d 636, 657 (tex. app.dallas 2015, no pet.).",1465
"in part, because of such considerations, the basis on which that rule was originally founded has, in the short space of twenty years, fallen into jurisprudential disrepute and is disapproved in the better-considered recent cases and in the authoritative scholarly writings.",1466
"specifically, the commission determined that claimant was entitled to ttd benefits only from october 5, 2011, through october 19, 2011.",1467
"the parties' dueling contentions turned on intricate issues about those groups' membership policies (e.g.,  could harris's payment of dues to the national naacp, or bowser's financial contribution to the mecklenburg county naacp, have made either a member of the state branch?).",1468
"following the hearing on the exceptions, the trial court concluded that the peremptory exception of no right of action should be overruled, and therefore the dilatory exception of prematurity is moot.",1469
"plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the prodigy corporations, instituted this action against fowlkes, barger, amanda smith, cody smith, and united spirit, inc. plaintiff brought individual claims against defendants for, inter alia, facilitation of fraud, civil conspiracy, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and usurping a corporate opportunity.",1470
"(cal. const., art. xiii c,  2, subds.",1471
changes in custody or parenting time may be modified only if the moving party demonstrates that modification is justified by proper cause or because of a change of circumstances.,1472
"to the extent that our opinion in goldstein v. navarro, 590 so.2d 20 (fla. 4th dca 1991), can be read to indicate that habeas corpus relief is not available in this court to remedy a civil contempt confinement in violation of due process, we recede from it.",1473
"thereafter, on june 14, 2017  during the pendency of this restricted appeal  this court withdrew its opinion and order from the original proceeding dated december 6, 2016 and substituted a new opinion and order, ultimately denying rph's request for mandamus relief.",1474
"xtreme lashes, 576 f.3d at 228.",1475
no fiduciary relationship exists here.,1476
"{57} however, even if he did not waive the issue by withdrawing the request, he did waive the kastigar issue when he entered a guilty plea. united states v. gaffney, 469 f.3d 211, 215 (1st cir.2006), citing united states v. lujan, 324 f.3d 27, 30 (1st cir.2003) (a guilty plea waives an appeal based on a kastigar claim based on the fifth amendment.).",1477
##note: people v. jones was reversed not overruled.,1478
"we, therefore, overrule the application of that decision to cases when the complained error is readily apparent from the argument briefed.",1479
"we expressly reject the personal, firsthand, direct knowledge standard formulated by the court of appeals in eckler and allen.",1480
"we disapprove of all portions of prior opinions of this court to the extent the court concluded otherwise, including, but not limited to, the rule 45 analysis in the following cases:",1481
"n.d. ill. 1992), and in re lawrence paperboard corp., 52 b.r. 907 (bankr.",1482
"accordingly, we overrule our contrary holding, on this specific point, in petitto, 767 f.2d at 610.",1483
"to the extent that they are inconsistent with this conclusion, people ex rel. dept. of transportation v. superior court (clark), supra, 60 cal.app.3d 352, and its progeny are disapproved.",1484
"because we now overrule that line of cases which would operate to grant workers' compensation benefits to a surviving spouse in such a situation, the trial court's order is reversed.",1485
"see, e.g., thomas v. city lights sch., inc., 124 f. supp. 2d 707, 713 (d.d.c. 2000) (holding school for at-risk youth owed duty under  319 to supervise its students while on a school field trip).",1486
"the child lived with hensch and mysak from the time of his birth until november 2015, when mysak moved out of the shared residence.",1487
"to the extent that it may be found inconsistent with this opinion, box stands overruled.",1488
"the decisions in hunt, fuller, and lary are overruled to the extent that they conflict with the modified vehicle-damage rule set forth in this opinion.",1489
"we therefore overrule taber and hicks insofar as they erroneouslyapplied cr 41, 02(3) to criminal cases.",1490
"schambach v. afford-a-pool & spa, 7th dist. no. 08 be 15, 2009-ohio-6809,  8, quoting juhasz v. costanzo, 144 ohio app.3d 756, 762, 761 n.e.2d 679 (7th dist.2001).",1491
we overrule appellants' first point of error to the extent appellants challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence of causation.,1492
"as is relevant here, in the united states a ship can be liable in rem for cargo damage, the idea being that the ship impliedly ratified the shipping contract when the carrier loaded the cargo onboard.",1493
"therefore, because this claim is without merit, it is summarily dismissed.",1494
"in sum, tomlin's per se approach to rule 60(b) is no longer good law.",1495
"r., 331 s.w.2d 314, was overruled to an extent in judge woodley's opinion in wilkerson, supra",1496
"we now reexamine the issue as an en banc court, overruling any implications in hance inconsistent with this opinion.",1497
"id. (citing malik v. state, 953 s.w.2d 234, 240 (tex. crim. app. 1997)).",1498
"the case of garrison v. street harper furniture carpet company, supra, is expressly overruled.",1499
"at the very latest, the plaintiff knew in 2012 that dial was unjustly enriched by the plaintiff's work product.",1500
"and because  1367(b) contains no exception for joinder of plaintiffs under rule 20 or class actions under rule 23, the court concludes, clark and zahn have been overruled.",1501
we overrule this point.,1502
to that extent chetkovich v. united states must be overruled.,1503
"moreover, here, as in ankrom, hicks followed the denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment with the entry of a guilty plea.",1504
"id. at 49,400-02.",1505
we agree with the fourth district.,1506
"however, we acknowledge that during his testimony, james denied sending the text messages.",1507
"on the contrary, we hold that forcing green to defend title to cargill's cattle cannot be characterized as an interference with green's property as we have defined such an injury today, and we disapprove of the anomalous holding in bridgers to the extent that it expands the reach of special injury to include the incidental effects of an injunction on those who were not directly targeted by the injunction.",1508
"accordingly, christensen is disapproved.",1509
"to the extent that some texas courts have recognized an exception to attorney negligence based on the subjective good faith of the attorney, those cases are disapproved.",1510
"repko moved for reconsideration and argued, among other things, that because the county simply pled it was entitled to immunity under subsection (12), the gross negligence standard contained in subsection (12) must be read into the immunity provisions contained in subsections (4), (5), and (13).",1511
"(pen. code,  1203.1, subd. (a)(3) [in granting probation, court """"shall provide for restitution in proper cases""""]; people v. giordano (2007) 42 cal.4th 644, 652.)",1512
"therefore, we hold today that a maintenance award in a fixed amount to be paid out over a definite period of time is subject to modification under krs 403.250(1), thereby overruling dame.",1513
"after agreeing to have the parties' dispute resolved on a paper record, at oral argument lively argued that cooper """"forgot"""" to process the payment or became distracted, and the court should so conclude by drawing inferences in favor of lively as the """"non-moving party.""""",1514
casey is overruled.,1515
the forest preserve foreclosed and then bought the property at the foreclosure auction.,1516
"because the trial court acted under its discretionary authority, as authorized by statute, to order the   defendant to serve his original sentence in confinement, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm its judgment.",1517
we note that the supreme court has expressly disapproved of the practice of relying on statements in separate opinions to determine whether a case has been overruled.,1518
"treating """"the judgment rendered in the first action . . . now as it was in the beginning,"""" we held that the people's claim was barred.",1519
evans must therefore be overruled.,1520
"but an inference of a participation in a conspiracy based on presence must be accompanied by evidence that the defendant """"supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the principal in the commission of the crime, and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal.""""",1521
"this appeal compels us to revisit our decision inhenderson v. state, 727 so.2d 284 (fla. 2d dca 1999), from which we now recede to the extent that it conflicts with our decision here.",1522
"id., at , 134 s.ct., at 2535 (internal quotation marks omitted).",1523
"we recognize that today's holding is in tension with a line of decisions in the commonwealth court, including decisions handed down after this court's non-binding explication in stewart.",1524
"see franchise tax board v. construction laborers vacation trust, 463 u.s. 1, 13-14, 103 s.ct. 2841, 2848, 77 l.ed.2d 420 (1983); williams v. caterpillar tractor co., 786 f.2d 928, 931-32 (9th cir. 1986) ( williams).",1525
"in both the adjudicatory and dispositional orders, the court found that the children's presence in the parents' home remained contrary to their welfare and ordered that they remain in an out-of-home placement.",1526
"the decisions in coffey and kleeman misinterpret the nonuse provision of section 228.190.1 and, on that point, no longer should be followed.",1527
"to the extent that adame v. hernandez, 327 ga.app. 869, 874(3)(b), 761 s.e.2d 402 (2014), holds that the trial court must support, with written findings, its exercise of discretion and consideration of the best interest of the child for whom child support is being awarded when applying a theoretical child support order under ocga  19615(f)(5)(c), it is hereby overruled.",1528
we overrule any language in bryant that suggests that the proper inquiry for assessing prejudice is whether a jury could have convicted the petitioner of the lesser-included offense instead of the charged offense.,1529
"insofar as the following opinions are inconsistent with this opinion, they are expressly overruled:",1530
"first, the plaintiff must establish """"a prima facie case of retaliation.""""",1531
"""""every robber or burglar knows when he attempts to commit his crime that he is inviting dangerous resistance.""""",1532
"to the extent that people v. otis, 33 cal.app.3d 893 [ 109 cal.rptr. 444], is contrary to the views expressed herein, it is disapproved.",1533
"westminster, colorado justice hood delivered the opinion of the court.   1 an underinsured motorist struck a car driven by dale fisher, causing fisher injuries requiring over $60,000 in medical care.",1534
. balliette,1535
"beck v. city of muskogee police dep't, 195 f.3d 553, 557 (10th cir. 1999) (citing smith v. city of enid ex rel. enid city comm'n, 149 f.3d 1151, 1154 (10th cir. 1998)).",1536
"in his first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him of the information required by ors 426.100(1).",1537
"##note: r.j. reynolds tobacco co. v. ciccone is the current case that is being dealt with, therefore it is not being overruled.",1538
"it is therefore, to that extent, overruled.",1539
"under this standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, and we will uphold the trial court's ruling so long as it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.",1540
##bauguess v. paine is not ovveruled (same line of cases).,1541
"reed lodges several other challenges to the constitutionality of california's capital sentencing scheme, all of which he concedes we have previously rejected.",1542
i would not have issued this order since i would not have known what [physician's] needs would be for the procedure to remove the battery.,1543
"in so holding, we recede from our decision in koch v. kimball",1544
"we therefore disapprove the court of appeal's decision in diaz, supra, 13 cal.app.4th 1755, insofar as it is inconsistent with the views expressed in our opinion in the present case.",1545
"for this reason we choose to follow it, and disapprove santos, supra, 171 cal.app.3d 67, as an aberration.",1546
"with this understanding of solatium damages, we turn now to plaintiffs' challenges to the district court's decision in this case.",1547
"the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is facially sufficient on sosataquechel's assertion that he would not have entered a plea of guilty, and instead would have chosen to go to trial, had counsel informed him of the claimed defense of self-defense.",1548
"[20] thus, in the context of his due process challenge, davis was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the suggestive out-of-court identification was orchestrated by """"improper state conduct.""""",1549
"we overrule seales and its progeny to the extent that they allow admission of testimonial statements when found to be reliable under the ""indicia of reliability"" test in the absence of cross-examination.",1550
"to the extent that prior opinions of the court of appeals are inconsistent with our holding today, we disapprove those decisions.",1551
"to the extent that cooper may be read to permit proof only by probable cause, it is overruled.",1552
"see schaffer by schaffer, 74 f.3d at 731.",1553
"but to the extent the court of appeal's implication might be read to suggest that the magistrate's failure cannot deny a defendant a substantial right affecting the legality of the commitment even when the failure is prejudicial as well as erroneous, the appellate court's opinion is unsound under the analysis set out above and is hereby disapproved.",1554
"but """"not every potential loss of liberty requires the full panoply of procedural guarantees available at a criminal trial.""""",1555
"the district court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of simple battery, yet the jury found green guilty as charged on knowing aggravated battery.",1556
"we expressly overrule nightclubs on this issue and hold that, as a general matter,  23a.010(4) satisfies the first amendment.",1557
"specifically, the trial court blocked appellants from putting on production and drilling cost testimony from kenneth hill, victory's ceo, when it sustained oz's objections to untimely disclosure of the witness and failure to provide access to voluminous records underpinning a summary report hill had prepared for trial.",1558
"hi-tech points to fawcett v. grosu, 498 s.w.3d 650, and sloat v. rathburn, 513 s.w.3d 500 (tex. app.austin 2015, pet. dism'd), in support of this argument.",1559
"the public safety officer shall be entitled to a transcribed copy of any notes made by a stenographer or to any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons, except those which are deemed by the investigating agency to be confidential.""""",1560
"finding a portion of electronic power wrongly decided, the en banc court overrules it to the extent it holds that a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law extends the trial court's plenary power.",1561
"hyatt, 316 mich app at 415.",1562
"intervening defendants argue that stand up does not apply here because the language of const 1963, art 2,  9, which was at issue in stand up, is substantially different from the language of const 1963, art 12,  2, at issue here.",1563
"see, e.g., frechette, 583 f.3d at 378-79 (16 months); morales-aldahondo, 524 f.3d at 119 (three years).",1564
"today, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and overrule that decision.",1565
"see vardaman, 711 so.2d at 732-733.",1566
"to the extent the court of appeal decisions in ashford v. culver city unified school dist., supra, 130 cal.app.4th 344, 29 cal.rptr.3d 728, sierra club v. contra costa county., supra, 10 cal.app.4th 1212, 13 cal.rptr.2d 182, newman v. state personnel bd., supra, 10 cal.app.4th 41, 12 cal.rptr.2d 601, and resource defense fund v. local agency formation com., supra, 191 cal.app.3d 886, 236 cal.rptr. 794, are inconsistent with the views expressed herein, those decisions are disapproved.",1567
we disapprove of the line of cases from the courts of appeal allowing attorney's fees in the case of executory process.,1568
"insofar as they hold to the contrary, brown and ray should no longer be followed.",1569
"plaintiffs rejected the deal, at which point it was dead.",1570
contrary statements in our opinions are disapproved.,1571
"our previous construction of the statute, krs 189.070(2),",1572
"to the extent that the shumaker and howard cases are inconsistent with the views expressed herein, they are disapproved.",1573
"we consider the reeves opinion unsound, and with it ream, its progeny.",1574
"on january 18, 2011, the appellees apparently each wrote a letter to the director of the mississippi bureau of investigation.",1575
the louisiana supreme court's remand of the instant case for review under our supervisory jurisdiction overrules by implication certain dicta of the jackson opinion that is inconsistent with such supervisory review.;,1576
"for these reasons, we overrule rosenstein and wilson to the extent that they incorrectly hold that an appellate court has no authority to grant an extension of the time to file a discretionary application under ocga  5639.",1577
"we overrule people v. montoya, 251 p.3d 35, 43 (colo.app.2010), to the extent that it suggests that the amended rule modified the requirements for a defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial.",1578
"to the extent it is in conflict with this viewpoint, southern ry. co. v. feldhaus, ky., 261 s.w.2d 308 (1953), is overruled.",1579
"in this regard, we return to and adopt judge sullivan's conclusion in hiscapes opinion, 615 n.e.2d at 455 (which we originally disapproved in our capes opinion",1580
"under such circumstances, notwithstanding the language used in hicks v. hamilton, supra, which case in so far as same is in conflict with our holding herein is overruled, we cannot subscribe to the contention that it is an absolute requisite to good and valid service that defendants actually receive a copy of the summons and petition in order to vest jurisdiction in the courts of this state, out of which the summons was issued, as to do so would destroy the intent and purpose of the law.",1581
see gtech (wherein gtech had an exclusive remedy in the procurement code's bid protest procedure - which was litigated to a final determination and was on appeal to this court - but had no other remedy at law to challenge the department of revenue's refusal to act in accordance with the procurement code's bid protest procedures).,1582
"wilson was disapproved on other grounds in kellett v. superior court (1966) 63 cal.2d 822, 827 [ 48 cal.rptr. 366, 409 p.2d 206], but the court in kellett nonetheless agreed that the flight from the officer constituted a separate offense from the procurement and threatened use of the gun.",1583
"by our holding today, we recede from this court's previous opinions in robertson, jimenez, and raleigh, a decision which we do not undertake lightly.",1584
"id. nor would the transaction undermine the commission's ability to exercise its """"full regulatory powers"""" over utilities.",1585
"therefore, to the extent that those cases are in conflict with today's holding they are overruled.",1586
"but samia did not produce any of those third parties as witnesses, and the jury was not required to credit samia's second-hand and uncorroborated account.",1587
"gonzalez-lopez, 548 u.s. at 150.",1588
we do not read lang to have overruled hoben.,1589
this standard of review affords considerable deference to the trial court provided that the court acted in accordance with the governing rules of law.,1590
this assignment of error is accordingly overruled.,1591
we agree with clements and the court of special appeals that cjp  12-302(c) does not authorize the state's appeal in this case.,1592
we overrule national loan investors to the extent it is inconsistent with this approach.,1593
"consistent with our discussion in floyd concerning congress's authority to regulate court procedures, and pursuant to the directives of the rules enabling act, we must abandon our holding in floyd that once the district court has certified that an appeal from a non-prisoner would not be taken in good faith, the litigant may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.",1594
"for this reason, we hold that kikumura is no longer valid as long as the guidelines are advisory.",1595
"any implications to the contrary in people v. cox, 156 cal.app.2d 472, 477 [ 319 p.2d 681], and people v. gonzales, 136 cal.app.2d 437, 440-441 [ 288 p.2d 588], are disapproved.",1596
"the government and the dissent argue that rule 11(a)(2) means that """"a defendant who pleads guilty cannot challenge his conviction on appeal on a forfeitable or waivable ground that he either failed to present to the district court or failed to reserve in writing.""""",1597
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are an exception to the error preservation requirement.,1598
"the supreme court said that the paroline factors are """"rough guideposts for determining an amount that fits the offense.""""",1599
"in sum, the court's holding in massachusetts mutual life ins. co. v. city and county of san francisco, supra, 129 cal.app.3d 876, is unsupported and unpersuasive, and we disapprove it.",1600
the dioceses' position that private attorneys are not required to take a secrecy oath -- which they carry into the present briefing -- was and is particularly confounding.,1601
"for all the foregoing reasons, friesen v. city of glendale, supra, 209 cal. 524, is overruled and lombardy v. peter kiewit sons' co., supra, 266 cal.app.2d 599, is disapproved to the extent that they are inconsistent with the views herein expressed.",1602
"therefore, we disapprove of hagar to the extent that it holds that the term 'charge' includes unilaterally placing on an account an amount due as interest without any other action.",1603
"his prejudice arguments necessarily depend on his argument that his mental state was compromised at the time of his pleas, which we determined was not borne out by the record in the context of his due process claim.",1604
"fernandes v. dar dev. corp., inc., 222 n.j. 390, 403-04 (2015) (citing townsend v. pierre, 221 n.j. 36, 51 (2015)).",1605
monge holds to the contrary and overrules these four decisions (but not the general rule that insufficiency of the evidence on any element precludes retrial).,1606
"in the may 2017 order, the district court asserts that the march 2013 order was not temporary, but the may 2017 order itself then goes on to state that, """"[christopher] was then to offset the cost of the unlv class for [kathy] for 2 months by dropping the monthly amount down to $200.00 ",1607
634 f.3d at 870.,1608
"we have concluded that the holdings in wyman, spillers, evangelical, supra, and their progeny, should be overruled and a new sense of direction established.",1609
we believe this is an appropriate opportunity to overrule apollo and to establish a new standard and procedure for handling the admissibility of coconspirator statements in criminal conspiracy trials.,1610
"in peteja, the court of appeals incorrectly held that whether the investigation involves a felony offense depends upon whether the evidence that was destroyed, altered, or concealed would have tended to demonstrate the commission of a felony.",1611
"19 it is well settled that where the legislature has delegated the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain, such power includes the authority to determine the necessity of exercising the right.",1612
"to the extent of conflict herewith, we disapprove of the opinion in halpin.",1613
we therefore recede from that part of rivera holding that the form of the objection was facially insufficient to trigger an inquiry under abshire- melbourne as to whether a peremptory challenge was being improperly exercised.,1614
neither pilothouse 60 itself nor the way in which it was discussed in conjunction with the motions in limine establishes that the trial court erred by excluding trimet's proffered evidence.,1615
"we do not read rofkar as relying on any distinction between whitton and dunlop, and we disavow the dicta in rofkar that indicates that different tests for multiple punishment apply in different contexts.",1616
"however, in his briefing, hanson discusses his injuries on several occasions.",1617
"therefore, to the extent that the ica in prior decisions has applied harmless error analysis to violations of the principles set forth in grindles , 70 haw. 528, 777 p.2d 1187, these decisions are overruled",1618
"the federal circuit has concluded that, in such cases, the declaratory judgment is ""moot"" in a jurisdictional sense, a conclusion that it considers dictated by two of our earlier opinions, electrical fittings corp. v. thomas betts co., 307 u.s. 241 (1939), and altvater v. freeman.",1619
our review is therefore limited at most to whether any errors caused a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.,1620
"indeed, in marsh, the prosecutor made the following statement during closing argument regarding the defendant's testimony: """"use your common sense, ladies and gentlemen.",1621
"caselaw which has expanded that definition to include ""substantial protections"" to which the defendant would have otherwise been entitled under the law as it existed at the time of commission of the offense was overruled.",1622
"to the extent that gregg, places the initial burden upon the state to prove that a warrantless search or seizure took place, it is overruled.",1623
"see commonwealth v. dennis, 164 a.3d 503, 512 (pa. super. 2017).",1624
"the alternative holding in heaps v. toy, supra, finding the contract in that case contrary to good morals, is inconsistent with the numerous california decisions upholding contracts between nonmarital partners when such contracts are not founded upon an illicit consideration, and is therefore disapproved.",1625
"to the extent, however, that reasoning in the opinion in m.l. foss in inconsistent with our holding in this case, we disapprove it.",1626
"people v. superior court, supra, 202 cal. 165, and people v. superior court, supra, 240 cal.app.2d 90, which permitted the issuance of mandate where there was a danger of retrial, are disapproved.",1627
"therefore, we decline to follow the courts that have reasoned that only acts that have an affirmative element of misrepresentation or false statement are probative of truthfulness, because these holdings create an unduly narrow category of acts that reflect on one's character for truthfulness.",1628
"indeed, this court has recognized that a party may make allegations on information and belief in the fraud context when """"(1) the facts constituting the fraud are not accessible to the plaintiff and (2) the plaintiff provides the grounds for his suspicions.""""",1629
"therefore, the entire july 31, 2013 invoice is within the scope of the award.",1630
"the texas health and safety code, in turn, defined intellectual disability as """"significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning that is concurrent with deficits in adaptive behavior and originates during the developmental period.""""",1631
"therefore, assuming without deciding whether the expert's testimony concerning the tagging incident was inadmissible hearsay, there was sufficient evidence to show that gmc is a group that engages in criminal gang activity.",1632
"the presumption of donative intent in carter, lalime, and weeks is not applicable after long.",1633
"to the extent that our holdings in patman v. state, 244 ga.app. 833, 537 s.e.2d 118 (2000), shivers v. state, 258 ga.app. 253, 573 s.e.2d 494 (2002), state v. fossett, 253 ga.app. 791, 560 s.e.2d 351 (2002), state v. charles, 264 ga.app. 874, 592 s.e.2d 518 (2003), boldin v. state, 282 ga.app. 492, 639 s.e.2d 522 (2006), and martinezvargas v. state, 317 ga.app. 232, 730 s.e.2d 633 (2012), could be interpreted as support for the premise that the odor of raw marijuana emanating from a particular location cannot be the sole basis for the issuance of a search warrant for that location, such interpretations are hereby disapproved.",1634
"the simple fact is that this board does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of a claim once we determine that an appeal is untimely, as it was here. . . . legally, we can do nothing but dismiss this appeal.""""",1635
we disapprove any language of dillingham or campbell that may be interpreted to support or compel a requirement that the pre-existing disability be manifest at the time of hiring.,1636
"given that the question of whether the accused acted in self-defense is a fact issue for the trier of fact's determination and that ""beyond a reasonable doubt"" is the required level of proof, we disavow this language in the sufficiency of the evidence context.",1637
"prominent among the chavez and garmon rulings which are disapproved and overruled is the holding that it is unlawful for an employer to make a contract with a labor ""organizer"" who represents none of the affected employes whereby the employer agrees that he will compel his workmen, on pain of discharge, to join the organizer's union and to ""consent"" that the employer shall deduct ""dues"" from the employes' pay checks for remittance to their ""organizer""  their unchosen and unwanted ""representative.""",1638
we overrule our prior cases which have authorized use of the concurrent sentence doctrine.,1639
"evidence not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically placed in the record.",1640
"those decisions are overruled,",1641
id. at 207-08.,1642
"id., 596.",1643
"see, e.g., estate of redden v. redden, 179 n.c. app. 113, 117, 632 s.e.2d 794, 798 (2006) (concluding that an order for partial summary judgement requiring the defendant to pay the sum of $150,000.00 and costs affected a substantial right).",1644
876 f.3d at 1306.,1645
tex. civ. prac. & rem. code ann. 18.001(e)(1).,1646
"city of pasadena's assertion that a municipally owned utility is not a ""public utility"" within the meaning of article xii (see 183 cal. at pp. 530-532), although not expressly disapproved by los angeles met. transit authority v. public util. com., supra, 59 cal.2d 863, is clearly inconsistent with the holding in the transit authority case sustaining puc jurisdiction over a municipally owned common carrier.",1647
therefore the turlock and laguna beach cases are overruled.,1648
"collin v. connecticut valley arms, inc., supra, 137 cal.app.3d 815 and united farm workers of america v. superior court, supra, 111 cal.app.3d 1009, 1119, are disapproved insofar as the former holds and the latter states that jurors who did not join in the negligence special verdict may not vote on the proximate cause special verdict.",1649
20. an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the failure to file a suppression motion is without merit if trial counsel lacked a legal or factual basis to do so.,1650
"jones, slip op. at 16 (citing stinson v. united states, 508 u.s. 36, 45 (1993)).",1651
johnson testified at trial that the man holding the gun was one of the two men wearing a blue sweater.,1652
"for clarity, we pause to note that by overturning winter storm, we also abrogate any decision insofar as it has relied on winter storm, specifically, consub delaware llc v. schahin engenharia limitada.",1653
"thus, the presence of an ambiguity in a contract does not always indicate a structural failure; it could just as easily mean that the parties intended to be bound to arbitrate and that the trial court, as the outside interpreter of the contract, should admit parol evidence to shed light on that contract's limits.",1654
"to the extent that di suvero and gould are inconsistent with this rule, they are hereby disapproved.",1655
"instead, we choose to overrule quintana, based on the supreme court's subsequent decision in monge and the many court decisions tracking monge.",1656
"so, we will evaluate the evidence presented at trial with the jury's accreditation of the state's witnesses in mind.",1657
"accordingly, we disapprove of our statement in chhom, 128 wash.2d at 741, 911 p.2d 1014, defining the criminal result of rape of a child as sexual intercourse alone.",1658
"to the extent that vaughan v. harvard indus., inc., 926 f. supp. 1340, 1348 (w.d. tenn. 1996) followed the myers rule and held that the ada does not require re-assignment when a disabled employee cannot be reasonably accommodated in his current position, it is overruled.",1659
"we approve the decision of the court below and disapprove mayberry v. state, 561 so.2d 1201 (fla. 2d dca 1990), to the extent it conflicts herewith.",1660
"insofar as the language in magezis v. municipal court, supra, 3 cal.3d at p. 58 and in grimes v. municipal court, 5 cal.3d 643, 646 [ 97 cal.rptr. 9, 488 p.2d 169] requires a more substantial showing by appellants than is required under mayer, they are disapproved.",1661
"finally, although thomas did not appear to have a possessory interest in the taxi, we have held that a permissible inference may be drawn that people who know each other and are traveling together in a vehicle """"in circumstances indicating drug use or selling activity are operating together, and thus are sharing knowledge of the essentials of their operation.""""",1662
"to the extent that double view ventures can be construed as adopting a categorical rule requiring a full retrial as the result of any apportionment errora reading we do not necessarily adopt, given the absence of any analysis of the issue in the opinionit is overruled as to this issue.",1663
"we announced a clear rule in kloeckner : """"[m]ixed cases shall be filed in district court.""""",1664
"although we are reluctant to do so, we must overrule gibson to the extent that it applies structural error review to an instructional error that affects only an element of the offense, a permissible evidentiary inference, or a potential theory of conviction, as opposed to an instructional error that affects the overarching reasonable doubt standard of proof.",1665
"1993) (en   banc)); see also perry, 408 u.s. at 601-02 (holding that mutually explicit understanding could give rise to protected property interest).",1666
"because on the date vetri ny applied for the 2016 koz benefits, march 24, 2016, vetri ny was not actively conducting a business within the navy yard koz, dced argues vetri ny could not be certified as a qualified business for any of 2016 and the application for koz benefits for january 2016 was properly denied.",1667
"in griffith the court explicitly overruled linkletter and held that in criminal cases, all newly declared rules of law must be applied retroactively to all criminal cases pending on direct review or not yet final  ""with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a `clear break' with the past.",1668
"like morning fresh farms, to the extent any of the del mesa farms cases can be read to stand for the proposition that a building, without more, provides sufficient connection to meet the requirement that the product ""originate from the land's productivity,"" we decline to follow them.",1669
"because that proposition is contrary to the restatement rule as adopted in gross, barber and joe cooper are, to that extent, overruled.",1670
"thus, to the extent inconsistent herewith, omni ins. co. v. kentucky farm bureau mut. ins. co., 999 s.w.2d 724, state farm mut. auto. ins. co. v. register, 583 s.w.2d 705, and royal-globe ins. companies v. safeco ins. co. of america, 560 s.w.2d 22, are overruled.",1671
"in hall, for example, a capital murder case, we evaluated the prosecutor's statements that """"the only thing colder than the grave of [the victim] is [the defendant's] heart"""" and that, after shooting a store clerk in the head, the defendant """"walked out coolly, calmly, and collected, with a .357 revolver waving at patrons in the store.""""",1672
"1989), can be read to conflict with our holding herein, and is to that extent overruled, we note that the petitioner in that case was not indigent and had already obtained an investigator at his own expense.",1673
board op. at *37.,1674
section 3553(c) and this court's cases make clear that a sentencing court cannot merely take into account the  3553(a) factors and the defendant's arguments related thereto.,1675
"however, appellant's defensive theories   strengthened the state's need for this evidence.",1676
"we disapprove of jensen construction co. v. dallas county, 920 s.w.2d 761 (tex.app.-dallas 1996, writ denied), to the extent that it holds otherwise.",1677
"language in people v. harrison, 176 cal.app.2d 330 [ 1 cal.rptr. 414], inconsistent with this holding, is disapproved.",1678
"d. del. 2006); accord, pls. d.i. 92, ex. a (letter from chetan bachale, consumer account analyst, ocwen loan servicing llc, to daniel tabb (mar. 9, 2016) (""""as the bankruptcy has been discharged, you are no longer personally liable for the debt.",1679
"as the issue of judge loo's rulings has been addressed in previous appeals, and we decline to reexamine the issue in the instant appeals, even if the motion was erroneously denied, it was harmless.",1680
"for all the foregoing reasons, the decision in woodlake, supra, 230 cal.app.3d 1058, is erroneous, and it is hereby disapproved.",1681
"see potter v. state dep't of human res., 511 so.2d 190, 192 (ala.civ.app.1986); see also c.l. v. d.h., 916 so.2d 622, 62526 (ala.civ.app.2005).",1682
(emphasis supplied); u.s. const. amend.,1683
"to the extent that this conclusion is inconsistent with in re e.t . , 2008 vt 48, 184 vt. 273, 959 a.2d 544, or in re l.g. , 158 vt. 639, 603 a.2d 381 (1992) (mem.), those cases are overruled.",1684
"for these reasons, we conclude that the constructions of the conduct rules in harrington and cicchetti are unsustainable, and we accordingly overrule those decisions.",1685
"although the district court recognized the ""general rule"" that "" rooker-feldman may not be invoked against a federal-court plaintiff who was not actually a party to the prior state-court judgment,"" 379 f. supp. 2d, at 1123, it nevertheless followed tenth circuit precedent in allowing application of rooker-feldman against parties who were in privity with a party to the earlier state-court action.",1686
"in so holding, we overrule moore v. skiles and the cases that have followed it.",1687
"however, even accepting that the initial stop was justified and the decision to impound the vehicle was not pretext for searching miller's vehicle without a warrant, i believe the mere existence of a police department policy is insufficient to satisfy the state's burden of proving the applicability of the inventory search exception to the fourth amendment.",1688
"therefore, we hereby expressly overrule hollis.",1689
"relying on article i,  2, of the constitution, the court required that congressional districts be drawn with equal populations.",1690
"therefore, lynch does not support the sweeping statement made by the haywood court; and because the haywood court clearly contradicts beaver in flatly stating that the state criminal judgment of a court not elected in accordance with the tennessee constitution is ""wholly void,"" 195 tenn. at 273, 259 s.w.2d at 162, haywood is overruled to that extent.",1691
"wife received from husband on august 28, 2014, as the buyout amount based upon their then-current equity in the family residence.",1692
"individuals enjoy a non-trivial privacy interest in their booking photos, and we overrule free press i 's contrary holding.",1693
"schulte v. venture stores, inc., 832 s.w.2d 13 (mo.app. 1992), and hoskin v. younger cemetery corp., 838 s.w.2d 476 (mo.app. 1992), to the extent that they conflict, are overruled.",1694
"to the extent that any dicta therein may impliedly suggest that intent is a necessary ingredient of the element of concealment, we decline to follow it, in light of our en banc holding today.",1695
"see knight v. jewett, 834 p.2d 696, 704-05 (cal. 1992).",1696
"14 after darby was convicted, he filed a postconviction motion arguing that his constitutional right to self-representation was violated because he had invoked his right during this exchange with the trial court.",1697
"to the extent the previous decisions in ex parte talley, brown, ex parte green, roberts, in re williams, harrell, akers, coffer, stucker, sam and edens conflict with the court's decision herein, they are expressly overruled.",1698
"on july 10, 2014, the state charged martin by amended information with one count of sale of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public park or a publicly owned recreational facility and one count of unlawful use of a two-way communication device. martin proceeded to trial and was found guilty as charged.",1699
"to the extent that ross v. commonwealth, supra, holds to the contrary, it is hereby overruled.",1700
"the plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dissolved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify the dissolution judgment by terminating his alimony obligation because of the defendant's alleged cohabitation with her boyfriend.",1701
"in my view, appellant adhered to the explicit requirements of our rules of civil procedure, and nothing more was required of her to preserve her claim.",1702
"cases on which defendant relies for sustaining the limited scope of the arbitrable issues and the necessity for preliminary court hearings on ""jurisdictional facts"" are hereby disapproved: pacific automobile ins. co. v. lang, supra, 265 cal.app.2d 837; rodgers v. state farm mutual auto. ins. co., supra, 13 cal.app.3d 641.",1703
this aspect of huf needs to be re-examined in light of blakely.,1704
"10 the restatement further views as irrelevant whether the mortgagee had actual or constructive notice of the intervening lien. according to the restatement, a mortgagee is entitled to subrogation provided that it reasonably expected to receive the security and priority of the lien it paid, and provided subrogation will not materially prejudice the rights of the intervening lien holders.",1705
##note: yamaha corp. v. state bd. of equalization is the current case that is being dealt with therefore it is not being overruled.,1706
"i agree with judge kerner's opinion to the extent that it affirms the judgment appealed from and that victor v. lane, 394 f.2d 268, a previous decision of this court, should be overruled.",1707
"the   agency may base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant's """"demeanor, candor, or responsiveness""""; the """"inherent plausibility"""" of his account; the consistency among his written statements, oral statements, and other record evidence; and """"any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, or any other relevant factor.""""",1708
"as the tenth circuit recognized, however, other courts of appeals have held that the limitations period for a constructive-discharge claim does not begin to run until the employee resigns.",1709
"tobey filed his complaint on april 1, 2016.",1710
"see, e.g., hyland v. homeservices of am., inc., 771 f.3d 310, 323 (6th cir. 2014) (affirming district court's holding that """"plaintiffs have not pled an alter ego or piercing the corporate veil claim in their fourth amended complaint and cannot now, when faced with summary judgment, assert this new theory of liability"""" (citation omitted)); counts v. mk-ferguson co., 680 f. supp. 1343, 1347 n.3 (e.d. mo.) (""""plaintiff has not pleaded alter ego liability against this defendant and it would not be possible to hold it liable on this basis given the claims advanced in the second amended complaint.""""),",1711
"to the extent that langley, supra, supports the conclusion that a reasonable inference of guilt may be drawn from neutral, orderly courtroom demeanor, it is overruled.",1712
"i disagree, however, with the majority's decision to overrule state v. smith, 200 conn. 465, 512 a.2d 189 (1986), and state v. tatum, 219 conn. 721, 728, 595 a.2d 322 (1991).",1713
"district of columbia, and the dicta in sims v. rives, and wood v. united states, are in conflict with the foregoing statement they are, to that extent, hereby repudiated.",1714
"to the extent that state v. hinton, 680 p.2d 749 (utah 1984) (per curiam) is inconsistent with this rule, it is overruled.",1715
"to the extent that our holdings in dove, 710 p.2d 170, and cannon, 692 p.2d 740, do not abide by the bright-line standard articulated in rule 7(f)(2), we overrule those cases.",1716
"the trial court's ruling here, however, pointedly did not determine the rights and interests of the parties and instead ordered the property sold pending a future determination of those rights and interests.",1717
" dissent is instructive, noting specifically that the majority found waiver and suggests, therefore, that any further substantive analysis is",1718
"rather than perpetuate that error, we acknowledge our mistake and overrule our prior opinion on that issue.",1719
"also, the record supports the court's findings that diaz's actions were not a product of control by salgado or a product of her fear of him.",1720
"so to be clear, to the extent tuck held that the judiciary possesses some power to interfere in the legislature's internal procedure, we overrule it today.",1721
##note: people v. gonzalez is the same line of cases as the current case therefore there is no overruling.,1722
"to the extent that schultz requires executive capacity as the sine quanon of the admission by a party-opponent exception to the hearsay rule, it is incorrect and is overruled.",1723
"in nath, the supreme court explained that in addition to complying with the requirements of the governing substantive law, a sanction must also comply with due process by being """"just and not excessive.""""",1724
"e.g., united states v. iannone, 184 f.3d 214, 222 (3d cir. 1999).",1725
"see commonwealth v. diaz, 448 mass. 286, 288 (2007).",1726
"this instruction was copied from the case of george v. standard slag company, ky., 431 s.w.2d 711, 715 (1968), and we specifically overrule that portion of the case.",1727
we overrule valley to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.,1728
"further, we reject use of the statutory definition of vessel in the lhwca as the basis for the definition of vessel under  905(b), as was done in lundy v. litton systems, inc., 624 f.2d 590 (5th cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 u.s. 913, 101 s.ct. 1353, 67 l.ed.2d 337 (1981), and overrule the holding in trussell v. litton systems, inc., 753 f.2d 366, 367 (5th cir. 1985), that a hull under construction, located ""on a building platform in a building-way within the shipyard,"" and not on navigable waters, was a vessel for  905(b) purposes.",1729
the time has come to reconcile and regularize our cases in this field.,1730
see wis. stat.  808.10 and rule 809.62. cir. ct. nos. 2016tp238,1731
"13 defendant is correct that abuse of discretion is typically the correct standard of review for discovery matters, such as the issue in the instant appeal.",1732
290 or at 153-54 (quoting ors 20.010 and ors 20.070).,1733
"it is unclear whether this means that behdadnia made an unconditional tender of the $400,000 (or more) due under the sales agreement.",1734
"lobrano, judge david r.m. williams, judge joan bernard armstrong, judge steven r. plotkin, and judge rudolph f. becker iii) have voted to overrule donnelly.",1735
"such an approach strikes us as being eminently sensible, and it is our judgment that a similar principle should be applied in the case at bar.",1736
"we are not persuaded by the rationale of either opinion and insofar as hillman v. commissioner, supra, is in conflict with our decision it is overruled.",1737
"to the extent this holding conflicts with the court of appeals' decision in farmers group, inc. v. trimble, 768 p.2d 1243 (colo.app. 1988) (""trimble iii""), we overrule that decision.",1738
{31} murder is an unclassified felony generally subject to an indefinite sentence of 15 years to life.,1739
"therefore, insofar as the holm case may be interpreted to hold that any photograph taken for the purpose of litigation and transmitted to an attorney is privileged, per se, it is disapproved.",1740
"18 following a lengthy hearing at which the court entertained argument from the parties' attorneys, the court granted john's motion for summary judgment.",1741
mcdonald is erroneous.,1742
"first, unlike here, the applicant in ex parte wolf submitted evidence supporting his position that his plea counsel's actions and advice fell below the prevailing professional norms for representation of a defendant like him.",1743
"however, when we look to the association's objection and arguments during the instructions conference, we see that the association's arguments were directed at the requested modification rejected by the circuit court.",1744
"to the extent that brashear v. payne, ky., 1954, 266 s.w.2d 346, is in conflict with this conclusion, it is overruled.",1745
22 edwards plainly held that perfecting an appeal following a guilty plea includes filing a postplea motion.,1746
(id. at pp. 903-904.),1747
"the commission instead undertakes to ensure """"just and reasonable"""" wholesale rates by enhancing competitionattempting, as we recently explained, """"to break down regulatory and economic barriers that hinder a free market in wholesale electricity.""""",1748
"crescent wharf etc. co. v. los angeles, 207 cal. 430 [ 278 p. 1028], fails to consider the above mentioned factors and should be overruled.",1749
"in re mortimore estate, unpublished opinion per curiam of the court of appeals, issued may 17, 2011, 2011 wl 1879737 (docket no. 297280), p. 1.",1750
"accordingly, we overrule get it kwik, to the extent that that opinion holds that a where a violation of the notice provisions of the bulk transfers act has occurred, the transferee cannot be personally liable to the transferor's creditors under any circumstances.",1751
"opn.] [ 97 cal.rptr. 40]; people v. miller, 12 cal.app.3d 922, 934 [ 91 cal.rptr. 97].)",1752
"as harper's testimony established, a 3-mile radius in houston will contain about 50 grocery stores.",1753
"plaintiff argues the trial court's finding the closure """"relates to"""" harassment of seals is supported by substantial evidence.",1754
"cf. doj guidance notice, 76 fed. reg. 470 at 7472 ([c]ompliance with section 5 of the voting rights act may require the jurisdiction to depart from strict adherence to certain of its redistricting criteria.).",1755
"in recognizing yurgel and agreeing with the holding in lamon, we recede from the following three opinions of this court.",1756
"to the extent, therefore, that fuentes may be considered an opinion of this court, we admit our error and disapprove it.",1757
"to the extent dye, 2009 ok 52, 230 p.3d 507,griffith, 2009 ok 51, 230 p.3d 488, and cossey, 2009 ok 6, 212 p.3d 447 conclude otherwise, they are overruled.",1758
"we went on to state that ""any statement or intimation to the contrary in our prior decisions in ellis and mitchell is hereby expressly disapproved.""",1759
advancing a theory that the 2010 order resolved any outstanding motion.,1760
"to the extent our decisions in brown, beale, and later cases, e.g., watson v. united states, 612 a.2d 179, 182 (d.c. 1992), impose a more exacting standard of relevance, we disavow them.",1761
"consequently, to the extent that miller or perez can still be read as authority for overlooking a party's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial and subsequently preserve the issue for appellate review by including it in a 1925(b) statement to which the trial court responds, their rationale for overlooking waiver is disavowed.",1762
"district 6 retains 70.3% of its predecessor district (old district 1). however, as discussed above, the senate in drawing this district did not perform a functional analysis, but rather focused on keeping the core of old district 1. old district 1, however, was drawn at a time when compactness was not a constitutional imperative.",1763
"therefore, the trial court's plea for rectification is vindicated; strother is expressly overruled; the judgment is reversed; and the cause is remanded.",1764
"see heckman v. williamson cty., 369 s.w.3d 137, 150 (tex. 2012) (plea to jurisdiction must be granted if defendant presents undisputed evidence that negates existence of jurisdiction).",1765
"for the reasons stated below, we overrule rock v. toan and reverse the judgment of the trial court.",1766
"the doctrine of carlson should be, and is hereby, overruled on the ground it violates  78-34-10(1) and (2).",1767
"to the extent our previous holding in slaughterback v. state, 594 p.2d 780 (okla.",1768
"##note: morehart v. county of santa barbara is reversed, not overruled (same line of cases).",1769
"accordingly, we recede from this court's decision in donahue, and affirm appellant's conviction and sentence in all respects.",1770
"the cases of louisville and jefferson county planning and zoning commission v. grady, ky., 273 s.w.2d 563, and boyd v. louisville and jefferson county planning and zoning commission, 313 ky. 196, 230 s.w.2d 444, are expressly overruled.",1771
"although judge rucker ably distinguished the factual and procedural situation in lackey from that in this case, we acknowledge the inconsistency identified by sia and hereby disapprove lackey to the extent that it is inconsistent with the holding set forth in the preceding paragraph.",1772
petitioner argues that the tribunal erred by affirming the department's denial of a pre for the property for the 2010 through 2013 tax years.,1773
we continue to believe that these cases properly state the law of the authority of a judge pro tempore to continue to rule on matters following expiration of his or her appointment and so disapprove those recent decisions of the court of appeals to the contrary:,1774
such case is hereby overruled insofar as it holds the form of the complaint and information was not subject to the exception.,1775
"""""attorneys have wide latitude in opening and closing statements, subject to the trial court's control, and limitation of the scope of the arguments is within the trial court's discretion.""""",1776
"here, the trial court imposed two concurrent two-year sentences for brown's convictions for possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug and possession of a hypodermic syringe or needle, as level 6 felonies.",1777
"the staff analysis of the bill references the conflict between paul v. jenne, 728 so.2d 1167 (fla. 4th dca), rev. granted, 741 so.2d 1137 (fla. 1999), and houser v. manning, 719 so.2d 307 (fla. 3d dca 1998), suggesting that a primary motivation behind the statute was to legislatively overrule the result in paul.",1778
"to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion, the decision in jacquin-florida distilling corp. v. department of business regulation, 356 so.2d 340 (fla. 1st dca 1978), is disapproved.",1779
"46 defendant argues, in the alternative, that the circuit court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into his posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.",1780
"in the present case, appellant requested that she pay $300 a month in child support, which the court granted.",1781
fontenot v. petmecky is overruled.,1782
"to the extent that they follow or approve of the holding in ex parte erwin, supra, the following cases are also overruled.",1783
"washington has adopted a number of provisions of the federal adoption and safe families act of 1997, designed to speed up the process of permanency planning for children in foster care.",1784
"we vacated and remanded, instructing the district court to evaluate bernal's claims under section 2255.",1785
"in so far as texas n. o. r. co. v. pool, tex.civ.app., 263 s.w.2d 582, no writ history, may be in conflict with what is here said, it is disapproved.",1786
"the first prong requires the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that defense counsel was not reasonably competent, while the second prong requires him to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for defense counsel's unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.",1787
congress possesses only limited authority to prohibit and punish robbery.,1788
"the intermediate court fell into error by following previous precedents of its own court, colbert v. mike-baker brick company, 326 so.2d 900 (la.app. 3d cir. 1976) and becker v. choate, 204 so.2d 680 (la.app. 3d cir. 1967), which had erroneously overlooked the legislative overruling of the decisions upon which they were based.",1789
"therefore, to the extent that language in lam suggests otherwise, such language should be disapproved.",1790
"appellant argues the alleged charge error """"at least in theory"""" could have allowed the jury to convict him for brandishing a hammer.",1791
"thus, boswell and cruse have been, at best, outlying cases concerning the effect of ""as is"" clauses in agreements involving the sale of used real property, and we overrule boswell and cruse to the extent that they stand for a proposition different than that expressed in clay kilgore constr., nesbitt, moore, leatherwood, haygood, o'connor, and massey.",1792
" this conclusion is not affected by our supreme court's recognition, subsequent to franko, of a habeas petitioner's right to appeal from the dismissal of his habeas petition even if the habeas court denies his petition for certification to appeal.",1793
c. defendants' claims for other fees.,1794
see a.r.s.  13-105(9).,1795
"insofar as mccurter v. older, supra, 173 cal.app.3d 582, 594, and employers casualty co. v. northwestern nat. ins. group, supra, 109 cal.app.3d 462, 474, can be read to hold that a party who fails to bring to the attention of the trial court an omission or ambiguity in its statement of decision may nevertheless avoid the presumptions in favor of the judgment, they are disapproved.",1796
"to the extent that kendricks, supra, or any other case, conflicts with this opinion, it is overruled.",1797
"to the extent that they are inconsistent with the views expressed herein, donnellan v. hite, supra, 139 cal.app.2d 43, and wallace v. superior court, supra, 141 cal.app.2d 771 are hereby disapproved, and matter of snyder, supra, 158 cal. 218 is overruled.",1798
"""""the plaintiff in a rear-end accident case must prove specific acts of negligence on the part of the following driver.""""",1799
hope was not required to file a claim for new injury under code  65.2-601.,1800
## note: could not find overruling language specifically for each of the cases listed in the snippet.,1801
at least two courts have refused to apply the discovery rule to cases involving statutory violations under r.c. 2305.07.,1802
"we answer the certified question in the negative, quash the district court's opinion, and disapprove gellert to the extent of conflict with this opinion, but we approve the result of the instant case.",1803
"[20] after an arrest is made, the arresting officer may search the person to """"'remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape'"""" and also """"'to search for or seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.'""""",1804
"consequently, according to the sheriff, allowing this statute to summarily result in loss of firearm rights without further judicial process or notice would be confusing and absurd.",1805
"in its decision, handed down on april 3, 2017, the court held that """"[n]othing in  924(c) restricts the authority conferred on sentencing courts by  3553(a) and the related provisions to consider a sentence imposed under  924(c) when calculating a just sentence for the predicate count.""""",1806
"because of its internal inconsistency, and because ainsworth is inconsistent with these precedents, it has effectively been overruled.",1807
"unlike the court, however, i would hold that all these districts must satisfy strict scrutiny.",1808
"in view of our foregoing discussion concerning the shortcomings of such an analysis, we find it necessary to depart from much of the rationale underlying that decision.",1809
"accordingly, the fair political practices opinion is disapproved to the extent that it is inconsistent with the present decision.",1810
"in so finding, we disapprove our earlier decision, in the interest of c.g., 261 ga.app. 814, 815, 584 s.e.2d 33 (2003), to the extent that it deems testimony describing nonverbal conduct depicted on a surveillance videotape to be hearsay.",1811
"as a result, there simply is no basis for concluding that the 911 call was outcome-determinative.",1812
"however, when a contract contains a latent ambiguity, the question of the parties' intent requires the taking of parol evidencesomething which this court will not do.",1813
"to the extent that mariner's village , supra, and village square , supra, held otherwise, they are overruled.",1814
"therefore, the decision of the second district court of appeal is approved on the totality of the facts presented, and to the extent they are inconsistent with this opinion, the wikso and bass decisions are disapproved.",1815
"rules declared valid  smith, john, judge  minnesota department of public safety jack y. perry, jason r. asmus, briggs and morgan, p.a., minneapolis, minnesota (for petitioners) lori swanson, attorney general, stephen d. melchionne, assistant attorney general, st. paul, minnesota (for respondents) considered and decided by halbrooks, presiding judge; rodenberg, judge; and smith, john, judge.",1816
"however, so far as it may appear to indicate that it is necessary for the winning party to an interference to file a cross-appeal in order to be entitled to argue any matter relevant to the issue of priority of invention which has been raised by him before the board, and which has been decided adversely to him, the statement contained in the sentence in question is at variance with the established practice of this court as set forth in the decisions cited above, and is accordingly overruled.",1817
"id., at 70a.",1818
"of most relevance here, the u.s. bank action was filed on september 15, 2010, in the u.s. district court for the northern district of texas by u.s. bank national association (""""u.s. bank""""), the entity appointed litigation trustee in idearc's bankruptcy, to recover funds for the benefit of idearc debt securities holders and other creditors.",1819
"( id. at p. 574; see also people v. green (1980) 27 cal.3d 1, 67, disapproved on other grounds in people v. hall (1986) 41 cal.3d 826, 834, fn.",1820
"to the extent that hunnicutt suggests otherwise, it is overruled.",1821
"still other states with a similar rule of evidence to tenn.r.evid. 404 have concluded that the sex crimes exception cannot be reconciled with the restrictive language of tenn. r.evid. 404; as a result, they have overruled prior cases to the contrary and expressly rejected the ""sex crimes"" exception, holding instead that evidence of prior sexual misconduct is governed by the same evidentiary rules as evidence of other non-sexual misconduct.",1822
the trial court was the first to consider the enforceability of the covenant.,1823
"likewise, the commission's functions, and the commission itself, were dependent on the rules and could not be severed.",1824
we therefore approve the second district's decision in j.s. u.b. and disapprove the fourth district's decision in lassiter.,1825
"6 the moshiers contend that the district court erred in granting fisher's motion for summary judgment because (1) a six-year, rather than a four-year, statute of limitations applies; (2) the statute of limitations did not begin to run until it was clear that they would not receive the full amount of their claim; and (3) the discovery rule applies, which would delay triggering the statute of limitations.",1826
"(loeffler, supra, 58 cal.4th at p. 1129.)",1827
"we see no abuse of discretion, and we therefore affirm the admission of dr. parran's expert testimony.",1828
"in re: review of issues relating to comm'n certification of distributed antennae sys. providers in pa., no. m-2016-2517831 at 3 n.5 (pa. p.u.c. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).",1829
"accordingly, we approve the decision of the fifth district court of appeal in the instant case and expressly disapprove the decision of the second district court of appeal in hofeling to the extent that it is inconsistent with the dictates of this opinion.",1830
"concluding that the outcome of this appeal with respect to attorney fees turns on our precedent in devine v. national treasury employees union, 805 f.2d 384 (fed. cir. 1986), and goodrich v. department of the navy, 733 f.2d 1578 (fed. cir. 1984), we decided to rehear the appeal en banc so that we could consider the following question:",1831
our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect.,1832
"30 accordingly, until there is more guidance and an effort at uniformity, we will continue to see a steady flow of cases in which this issue is raised, with widely varying results from our court.",1833
williams has not filed a response.,1834
"the jury could have disbelieved such evidence, but it was not subject to   multiple interpretations.",1835
"because hummel, the conflict case, involved a motion filed under rule 3.800(a), we disapproved the first district's decision only ""to the extent it [wa]s inconsistent with"" anderson.",1836
"moreover, the board's finding of no waiver in this case accords with its practice of """"appl[ying] cauthorne . . . 'narrowly,'"""" only finding waiver """"where there is explicit contract language authorizing an employer to cancel its obligations.""""",1837
"bahtuoh, 840 n.w.2d at 820 (emphasis omitted).",1838
"the district court dismissed count i because """"without some factual basis for the allegation that an elevated table in a galley was defective or that [ncla] had notice of its dangers, [allen]'s claim for jones act negligence fails as a matter of law."""" allen had """"not asserted facts that any instrumentality he was required to use was defective nor [had] he asserted he was instructed to perform his duties in an unsafe manner.""""",1839
"we note that, in mcclung, the supreme court of tennessee abandoned the imminent harm test put forth in cornpropst v. sloan, the case on which this court relied in shipes.",1840
three courts of appeals have reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts.,1841
"thus, bledsoe does not control our holding in this case.",1842
dr. benefield has never specifically identified how these affidavits prejudice his ability to prepare for a trial on the merits.,1843
cummings left the service door of the garage open and went into his house to shower.,1844
the district court dismissed smith's ada claims against dmh as barred by the eleventh amendment.,1845
"furthermore, the board found """"compelling"""" mallinckrodt's argument based on secondary considerations, namely that """"if it were obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to exclude children with lvd from treatment with [nitric oxide], the experts in the field who designed the [inot22] study would have excluded those children from the original protocol.""""",1846
"villa, supra, 156 cal.app.3d 1076, hinkle, supra, 175 cal.app.3d 587, and postural therapeutics v. workers' comp. appeals bd., supra, 179 cal.app.3d 551, are disapproved to the extent that they are inconsistent with this holding.",1847
"instead, a plaintiff must """"provide enough detail to show the factual basis for its claim.""""",1848
"we hereby disapprove of merendino v. burrell, 923 s.w.2d 258, 261 (tex. app.  beaumont 1996, writ denied), and miller v. cozart, 394 s.w.2d 22, 24 (tex.civ.app.  dallas 1965, no writ), to the extent that they hold that a person who owns or is otherwise responsible for horses has a duty to prevent the horses from roaming onto a farm-to-market road that is free from a local stock law.",1849
"in its haste to reduce the practically unmanageable volume of claims that presently may be brought by way of post-conviction habeas corpus under article 11.07, v.a.c.c.p., the majority has overruled yet another of its past decisions without adequate justification.",1850
we recede from prior opinions inconsistent with this holding.,1851
"the statute bars certain """"alien[s]"""" from """"attempt[ing] to enter . . . the united states."""" 8 u.s.c.  1326(a)(2).",1852
knight argues that the state violated his right to a speedy trial.,1853
"we agree with appellant that this court incorrectly applied the controlling statute in the hitaffer case, and for the reasons now discussed we overrule hitaffer v. argonne co. as to the interpretation of section 5 of the act.",1854
"miller, supra, and brunner, supra, are overruled to the extent that they conflict with this opinion.",1855
"for the reasons that follow, we disapprove campanella and kotoff to the extent they conclude that a court exercising its discretion on a motion for special trial preference may not consider the plaintiff's lack of diligence or prejudice to the defendant once the five-year bar is imminent.",1856
"petro-chem., 514 s.w.2d at 245-46.",1857
"in so holding, we decline to follow this court's decision in wickersham ford, inc. v. orange county, 701 s.w.2d 344 (tex.app.  beaumont 1985, no writ), which found orange county to be both a person and a corporation under art. 2226.",1858
"next, defendants argue that the trial court erred by rejecting their counterclaims against the smith and bauckham plaintiffs.",1859
"the court concluded that """"in cases of any  significant complexity the word 'may' in rule 52(a) should be construed to read 'generally should.'",1860
"to the extent that lynn strickland deviates from the statutory definition of wantonness, as followed by this court, it is hereby overruled.",1861
"bottoson, 833 so.2d at 695 (citing hildwin v. florida, 490 u.s. 638, 109 s.ct. 2055, 104 l.ed.2d 728 (1989); spaziano v. florida, 468 u.s. 447, 104 s.ct. 3154, 82 l.ed.2d 340 (1984); barclay v. florida, 463 u.s. 939, 103 s.ct. 3418, 77 l.ed.2d 1134 (1983)).",1862
"given the potential"""" for certain records to qualify as trade secrets, the """"other statute"""" provision of the pra """"operates as an independent limit on disclosure of portions of the records at issue here that have even potential economic value.""""",1863
"(as last visited june 20, 2017) (bold in original).",1864
"for these reasons, we overrule the language of people v. mcgee, supra, 1 cal.2d 611, and its progeny, to the extent it suggests a court lacks fundamental subject matter jurisdiction over a time-barred criminal action.",1865
"appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the supreme court, suffolk county (william j. condon, j.), rendered march 24, 2015, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.",1866
"state v. andrus, 250 la. 765, 199 so.2d 867 (1967), and state v. green, 244 la. 80, 150 so.2d 571 (1963) are specifically overruled.",1867
"we, therefore, overrule jackson and its progeny and hold that where the evidence authorizes a finding that a defendant's reckless conduct is an included crime in an aggravated assault, verdicts finding him guilty of both of those offenses are not mutually exclusive.",1868
"when officer darrell sexton went to the petitioner's residence, the petitioner refused to allow officer sexton inside the residence and spoke to him through a security door.",1869
"in our judgment, robinson mandates the conclusion that gonzales is no longer good law and must be deemed overruled.",1870
"id. at 943-44 (citing rosado v. state, 1 so. 3d 1147, 1148 (fla. 4th dca 2009)).",1871
"the fifth circuit relied on harbison v. bell, 556 u. s. 180 (2009), in which a prisoner appealed from an order that denied counsel under 3599 for a state clemency proceeding but that did not address the merits of any habeas petition.",1872
"the court also observed that a major fund raiser """"pleaded guilty to a charge of violation of 18 u.s.c.  600, in having promised, in 1971, a more prestigious post to ambassador (to trinidad) j. fife symington, in return for a $100,000 contribution to be split between 1970 senatorial candidates designated by the white house and mr. nixon's 1972 campaign.""""",1873
"united states v. callahan, 801 f.3d 606, 616 (6th cir. 2015).",1874
"in order that there can be no question in the future about the matter, we hereby overrule the southern paint mfg. co., inc., v. crump, supra, to the extent that it conflicts with our holding here.",1875
appellant appeals.,1876
"b.a. appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.",1877
"at the very least, this court ought to address the problem created by kar because, as this case illustrates, kar is distorting the burden of proof in this important area of the law.",1878
"why close? because, says the fan, the phillies lost each inning by only one run.",1879
" pace v edel-harrelson, 499 mich 1, 5 (2016).",1880
"we now overrule our prior decisions in williams and nikaido, and hold that wetzel's claim was not time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.",1881
"we disapprove the opinion in brawner v. arellano, 757 s.w.2d 526 (tex.app.  san antonio), pet. dism'd by agr., 758 s.w.2d 756 (tex. 1988), to the extent that it is inconsistent with our holding herein.",1882
"after the adoption of a historic preservation plan for any historic district, """"all governmental agencies shall be guided by and give due consideration to the plan in any official acts affecting the area.""""",1883
"the contrary holding in konstantinidis v. the s.s. tarsus, 196 f. supp. 433 (e.d.n.y. 1961), is disapproved, as are similar intimations in miravalles compania naviera, s.s. v. nissho co., 207 f. supp. 716 (e.d.n.y. 1962) and ships freights inc. v. farr, whitlock co.",1884
 upon further consideration we reverse our prior ruling in this case and overrule our holding in butera and its progeny.,1885
"(in re victor l. (2010) 182 cal.app.4th 902, 910 (victor l.).)",1886
all previous opinions of this court upholding immunity of the sovereign are hereby overruled.,1887
the majority correctly notes that abandonment of the doctrine and reversal is not yet compelled in this case by the united states supreme court's first amendment jurisprudence.,1888
"if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, the district court should grant the motion for summary judgment.",1889
three circuits  two sitting en banc  have disagreed with farrakhan i and concluded that felon disenfranchisement laws are categorically exempt from challenges brought under section 2 of the vra.,1890
"to the extent that hudson provides otherwise, it is overruled.",1891
"for these reasons we believe that board of education v. chattin, supra, should be overruled to the extent that it conflicts with the views herein set out.",1892
"it seems to me, to the contrary, that there was virtually nothing more to be said.",1893
we overrule hughes v. state to the extent that it contradicts our holding in this case.,1894
we also overrule or disapprove of the following cases to the extent they permitted special verdict forms in habitual offender proceedings which did not allow the jury to find that the defendant was not a habitual offender even though there was a finding that the state had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had accumulated two prior unrelated felony convictions,1895
"construed in a light most favorable to support the jury's verdict, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find edge guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of peeping tom.",1896
"the holding in associated is rejected inasmuch as we believe the district court placed undue emphasis on section 316(a), which we have found must be read in context with the other sections of the code, and also on that area of legislative history which we have found inconclusive.",1897
"thus, reliance on the statutory definition would impair the court's analysis because it would not provide a useful comparison to the court's descriptive dictionary definitions of """"producing"""" and """"fabricating.""""",1898
"based on the above analysis, we conclude that williams was wrongly decided, and we hereby overrule it.",1899
"a majority of the justices of this court voted to consider this appeal en banc, and we overrule mcgregor to the extent it can be read to support jurisdiction in this court over an appeal from a judgment of a county court on an appeal from small claims court.",1900
we accordingly quash tricam industries and disapprove of nissan motor and nacra.,1901
"people v. donoho, 204 ill. 2d 159, 170 (2003).",1902
"see tex. code crim. proc. ann. art. 38.23 (west 2005) (providing that no evidence obtained in violation of constitution shall be admitted against accused and that """"[i]n any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained"""").",1903
"as an initial matter, should evidence of dm's   pregnancy be excluded, the evidence of the abortion would cease to be relevant to the extent it is needed to explain why no dna evidence is available.",1904
"undeniably, the complaint paints a disturbing picture of some segregated and underperforming schools in and around the twin cities. although it is true that the judicial branch must """"say what the law is,"""" marbury, 5 u.s. (1 cranch) at 177, it is also true that """"[q]uestions, in their nature political, . . . can never be made in this court,"""" id. at 170.",1905
neither party disputes the sentencing court's decision to apply the version of the guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing.,1906
justice reyes and justice lampkin concurred in the judgment.,1907
"we disapprove of johnson v. mt. sinai medical center, inc., 615 so.2d 257 (fla. 3d dca 1993), and castillo-plaza v. green.",1908
"finally, howell asserts allowing evidence of extraneous offenses violated texas rules of evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404(b).",1909
"we conclude that insurance code section 520 dictates a result different from that reached in henkel, and accordingly we overrule the decision in henkel to the extent it is inconsistent with the views expressed in the present opinion.",1910
"by amending section 846, the legislature indisputably intended to remove the darr and o'shea limitations and to immunize the owner of any interest in real property regardless of whether the interest includes the right of exclusive possession.",1911
"the trustee notes that debtor fails to meet the first prerequisite of standing under weston, because he did not file any objection to the sale motion.",1912
"in rejecting the doctrine of equitable subrogation in the present case, the trial court relied on two decisions of this court which we now address.",1913
"there was no evidence that the juror harbored any racial prejudice and, as the court explained, the rule of vann long was not applicable in that circumstance because, since """"no . . . bias was apparent, . . . an unequivocal response was not necessary to rehabilitate the juror's impartiality.""""",1914
"therefore, we must hold that, contrary to our earlier decisions in homa and in this case, the rule established by the new jersey supreme court in muhammad is preempted by the faa.",1915
"therefore, we quash the fifth district's decision in taylor and disapprove its decision in cervino v. state, 785 so.2d 631 (fla. 5th dca 2001), to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.",1916
we hereby disapprove coble to the extent it imposes such a limitation.,1917
"upon further consideration of our holding in carter oil co. v. samuels, supra, we now conclude that carter should be overruled, and that payment and acceptance of delay rental under the terms of the lease does not in and of itself constitute a waiver of an implied covenant on the part of the lessee to protect the lessor from drainage.",1918
"after consideration of that precedent, we now conclude that harp no longer remains good law.",1919
a hearing on all three motions was conducted.,1920
"first, as stated above, child support agreements must be calculated and reviewed by the district court to ensure compliance with the child support statutes.",1921
the absence of textual support is fatal for the fobian rule.,1922
"to the extent this opinion is in conflict with state v. malone, 654 so.2d 92 (ala.crim.app. 1995), malone is hereby overruled.",1923
"accordingly, everett is overruled, and the judgment of the superior court is reversed.",1924
"therefore, we are compelled to overrule blanton, in which the issues were similar to those in the case at bar, on the strength of the supreme court cases of green v. united states and benton v. maryland.",1925
"it is clear that the traditional exceptions of motive, intent, etc., apply to cases involving sex offenses, and general language to the contrary in buchel and in cases upon which it relies is disapproved.",1926
"mccaa v. mccaa, supra, and perry v. perry, supra, are overruled insofar as they are inconsistent with this opinion.",1927
"the ultimate question at issue in a case like this is whether """"there is a reasonable probability that [the jury] would have struck a different balance.""""",1928
"it further reasoned that """"[n]othing suggests the director enjoys a license to depart from the petition and institute a different inter partes review of his own design"""" and that """"congress didn't choose to pursue"""" a statute that """"allows the director to institute proceedings on a claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground basis"""" as in ex parte reexamination.",1929
juror crites stated that neither mr. truax nor his son were present when she took her smoke breaks and that she did not speak with anyone who was not a juror except for one woman who asked her for a cigarette lighter.,1930
"julien"" doctrine are overruled, insofar as they conflict with the views here expressed.",1931
"to the extent treadwell, supra at 742743, 684 s.e.2d 244 and wilkes v. state, 293 ga.app. 724, 726(2), 667 s.e.2d 705 (2008) can be interpreted to hold otherwise, they are overruled.",1932
"accordingly, the former wife claimed that the former husband's alimony obligation had remained """"fully due since october, 2011"""" through the date of the former wife's motion, yet the former husband failed to honor that obligation.",1933
"inasmuch as the maximum term of the defendant's sentence expired during the pendency of this appeal, any issues which relate to the length of his sentence are academic (see people v velez, 116 ad3d 1077, 1077; people v gonzalez, 113 ad3d 792, 793; people v conklin, 46 ad3d 698, 698; people v ackridge, 31 ad3d 654, 655). under these circumstances, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention that his appeal waiver was invalid (see people v bernard, 155 ad3d 1059, 1059; people v thomas, 139 ad3d 986, 986).",1934
"consequently, w e disapprove the decision in state v. falcon 556 so.2d 762 (fla. 2d dca 1990), which, contrary to ferrair, held that section 713.34 (3), florida statutes (1985), created an unconstitutional mandatory presumption.",1935
"to the extent barrett is inaccurate, it is not to be followed.",1936
"furthermore, coleman is necessarily overruled by holly farms.",1937
"however, to the extent that national wildlife suggests that an eis must be prepared where the government has not surrendered its absolute right to prevent the use of resources, national wildlife is in conflict with conner, and is therefore not persuasive precedent.",1938
"to the extent the court held that such release or settlement executed by the injured husband before his death did not bar an action for pecuniary loss under the wrongful death statute when brought by the personal representative of the decedent for the exclusive benefit of the surviving wife and children, if any, or next of kin, they are hereby overruled.",1939
"to the extent that cermeno-cerna v. farrell, 291 f. supp. 521 (c.d., cal., 1968), appeal dis'd as moot sub nom. giumarra vineyards corp. v. farrell, 431 f.2d 923 (9th cir., 1970), is contrary to this holding, it is expressly disapproved.",1940
"accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.",1941
"riedlinger, 2013 nd 14,  10, 826 n.w.2d 340. """"summary judgment is inappropriate if neither party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law or if reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts.""""",1942
"because we find our decision in valdes v. state, 3 so.3d 1067 (fla. 2009), controlling, we disapprove of the fourth district's decision in shazer and approve the fifth district's decision in mckinney.",1943
"accordingly, we now overrule chard and disavow statements in subsequent cases suggesting its correctness.",1944
"kinsel v. lindsey, 526 s.w.3d 411, 419 (tex. 2017).",1945
we now explicitly overrule hartwich.,1946
"see generally worthy v. state, 307 ga. app. 297, 304 (3) (704 se2d 808) (2010) (rejecting argument of post-certified campus policeman that although he was off-duty and not on campus, he nevertheless had a duty to arrest a person who violated the law in his presence).",1947
"in franchise tax bd. of cal. v. hyatt, o.t. 2002, no. 42, p. 12. we reviewed that decision, and we affirmed.",1948
"american underwriters group, inc. v. williamson, 496 n.e.2d 807 (ind.ct.app. 1986) expressly overruled one of the principal cases establishing this right in indiana, automobile underwriters, inc. v. stover, 148 ind. app. 555, 268 n.e.2d 114 (1971).",1949
insofar as that language conflicts with the decision in the instant case it must be overruled.,1950
"{15} handcock's claim that the verdict form was flawed could have been raised in his direct appeal, and was raised and addressed in a prior postconviction relief petition.",1951
"but, having overruled haney, we no longer need apply the rationale of mooney and wooten in the context of convictions obtained under article 44.02.",1952
"accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court below and disapprove those of the courts in chessler, mitchell, and williams, to the extent that they conflict with this ruling.",1953
"in people v. ramirez, supra, 34 cal.3d 541, the supreme court disapproved people v. marquez, supra, 237 cal.app.2d 627, which had validated a good faith arrest made on a recalled warrant, and disapproved cases relying on marquez.",1954
"66 in my view, the court of appeals decision in state v. austin, 2013 wi app 96, 349 wis. 2d 744, 836 n.w.2d 833, is on all fours with the facts of the instant case.",1955
"we disapprove not about water com. v. board of supervisors, supra, 95 cal.app.4th 982, to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.",1956
"accordingly, we disapprove the second district court of appeal's decision in floridaire to the extent it can be read as requiring notice to be served on an owner who shares a common identity with the contractor.",1957
"to the extent that people v. milton, supra, 55 cal.app.4th 365, people v. allen, supra, 53 cal.app.4th 1127, people v. sanders, supra, 52 cal.app.4th 175, people v. robles, supra, 51 cal.app.4th 627, people v. ervin, supra, 50 cal.app.4th 259, people v. holloway (1996) 47 cal.app.4th 1757 [ 55 cal.rptr.2d 547], people v. howard (1996) 47 cal.app.4th 1526 [ 55 cal.rptr.2d 520], and people v. ramos (1996) 47 cal.app.4th 432 [ 55 cal.rptr.2d 1] are inconsistent with the views expressed in this opinion, they are disapproved.",1958
see pa.r.d.e. 218(f).,1959
"state v. gonzales, 150 ohio st.3d 276, 2017-ohio-777, 81 n.e.3d 466. (""""gonzales ii"""").",1960
"the trustee first contends that  506(a)(2)'s definition of replacement value as """"the price a retail merchant would charge for property of that kind"""" indicates that courts should """"identify the retail price of a mobile home, not all costs incurred in connection with the purchase of a home.""""",1961
lane expressly overruled knox in that respect.,1962
"to the extent they hold otherwise, we disapprove of swift v. seidler, 988 s.w.2d 860, 861-62 (tex.app.-san antonio 1999, pet. denied), norman v. yzaguirre chapa, 988 s.w.2d 460, 462-63 (tex.app.-corpus christi 1999, no pet.), and dear v. scottsdale insurance co., 947 s.w.2d 908, 918 (tex.app.-dallas 1997, writ denied).",1963
320 s.w.3d at 838-40.,1964
"in this regard, we disapprove judge barnes's and the trial court's formulations to the extent that they hold that a cause of action accrues when exposure to asbestos occurs even though a disease does not manifest itself until many years later.",1965
"upon re-examination of the rule set forth in those cases, we find it to be improper and confusing to the jury, and we therefore recede from it and overrule those cases to that extent.",1966
"see id. like in any proximate cause analysis, an intervening event may break the chain of causation between the allegedly wrongful act and the plaintiff's injury.",1967
"our opinion in in re hart, 923 f.2d 1410 (10th cir. 1991) (per curiam), is accordingly overruled to the extent it conflicts with nobelman.",1968
"people v. stewart, supra, 89 cal.app.4th 1209, and people v. tucker, supra, 187 cal.app.3d 295, are disapproved to the extent they conflict with these conclusions.",1969
{ 13} we have considered the issue raised in this case on numerous occasions.,1970
"you must not consider this evidence for any other purpose.""""",1971
"syllabus point 1, in part, chambers, 157 w.va. at 77, 198 s.e.2d at 807.",1972
all inconsistent opinions are hereby overruled.,1973
"what does that tell us? . . . if it was jaime castillo and dozer, or hondo and dozer, actually blocking off the route of escape for the possible victims, then they're acting as accomplices as well and they're just as guilty for the murder as though they pulled the trigger at the back patio area. that's accomplice liability.",1974
"davis v. united states, 564 u.s. 229, 236-37 (2011).",1975
"eibl acknowledges that the circuit court asked him whether he had reviewed the elements of the charges with his attorney, and eibl admits that he told the circuit court that he had,",1976
"overall, treating the motion as an amendment to defendants' new matter did not limit robinson's ability to present this case because common pleas afforded him the opportunity to amend his complaint and the district court had already thoroughly evaluated the merits of this case.",1977
"similarly, the supreme court did not assess what happens to a capital felony classification when death becomes constitutionally unavailable as a sentence; the question in mills did not require it, but the question here does.",1978
any prior cases to the contrary such as montoya and romo are expressly overruled.,1979
"of course, lucas and garcia, dealing with mandatory minimum sentences, are likewise overruled to the extent they conflict with harris and this opinion.",1980
"this court's lewis decision, in placing great emphasis on the fact that lewis' petit theft and uttering a forgery offenses were based on the ""same act,"" and in going beyond the blockburger test, cannot be reconciled with recent supreme court rulings.",1981
"to the extent that hoover, isom, birch, williams, and any other prior cases are inconsistent with our holding today, they are hereby expressly overruled.",1982
anything in settle that can be read to be contrary to the holding of this case is likewise overruled.,1983
"before the court takes the radical step to overrule cervantes  and effectively to impugn the rationale of morales too, albeit sub silentio  it would do well to explain why the requirement of article 26.13(a)(4) is not of sufficient import to defeat the state's otherwise compelling interest in the finality of convictions.",1984
"state v. banks, no. 1992841cf at 8 (fla.2d jud. cir. ct. final order denying motion to vacate filed oct. 15, 2014).",1985
"schuler v. schuler, 382 mass. 366, 370-371 (1981).",1986
"we acknowledge that, in rejecting the inadvertence prong as a component of the plain-view exception as articulated in bruzzese , we are setting forth a new rule of law.",1987
"and in lawrence, which was later superseded in part by statute, seetex.",1988
"to the extent that davis, whitehead, and lawson hold to the contrary, they are overruled.",1989
"to that extent, we overrule farris on that point as well.",1990
"any language in stanley, roach or vestal which implies otherwise, is expressly disapproved.",1991
"the supreme court has held that """"when an employer directs or requires an employee to undertake an activity, 'that compulsion, standing alone, brings an activity that is otherwise unrelated to work within the scope of employment.'""""",1992
725 f.3d at 1207 (citing to 40 c.f.r.  122.26(d)(2)(i)(f) (regarding municipal storm water discharges)).,1993
that interest continued intact following issuance of the checks and their deposits into their joint back account.,1994
our cases to the contrary are overruled.,1995
"the committee's use of the possessive pronoun to reference """"place of business"""" (as used in penal law  400.00), akin to the construction employed by penal law  265.03 (3) (""""such person's . . . place of business""""), demonstrates that, consistent with the legislative effort to standardize this act, """"place of business"""" was meant to be a uniform phrase in these sections of the penal law (see matter of dutchess county dept. of social servs. v. day, 96 ny2d 149, 153 [2001] [""""[c]ourts must harmonize the various   provisions of related statutes and . . . construe them in a way that renders them internally compatible""""] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; yatauro v mangano, 17 ny3d at 427).",1996
roberts' framework is unpredictable.,1997
"whatever ""higher"" expectation of privacy a traveler may have in a private roomette, we hold that such roomettes do not confer upon occupants the same degree of privacy as a dwelling or hotel or motel room, and we overrule any contrary statement in united states v. dimick.",1998
"in that connection, this opinion overrules any statements and conclusions made in the brager case with respect to the effect of the braden opinion on situations involving challenges to pending untried criminal charges on which a detainer is based.",1999
"as we determined in the case of jackson v. nat. harrison associates, 283 so.2d 27 (fla. 1973), filed this date, stephens v. winn-dixie stores, inc., supra, is no longer controlling since the apportionment statute (fla. stat.  440,15(5)(c), f.s.a.) has been substantially altered since the rendition of the stephens' opinion.",2000
"see mathias, 347 f.3d at 678.",2001
"darrow v. beneficial finance company and hewlett v. john blue employees credit union, supra, are hereby specifically overruled.",2002
"to the extent of such inconsistency, we overrule those cases.",2003
"to the extent the southern district of new york's decision in internet law library, 223 f.supp.2d 474, is to the contrary, we reject it.",2004
muoz-nava involved a downward variance from a 46-57-month guideline range to 12 months in prison and 12 months in home confinement.,2005
"fccsea would surely withdraw its request if it investigated appellant's claim and concluded that its notice of the lump sum payment arose from a fraudulent claim for unemployment benefits, as appellant asserts.",2006
"in wenke v. hitchcock, supra, 6 cal.3d 746, we partially overruled lindsey.",2007
"to the extent that it holds otherwise, delia s. v. torres (1982) 134 cal.app.3d 471, 483-484 [ 184 cal.rptr. 787], is disapproved.",2008
"under an estoppel theory, """"[a] nonsignatory is estopped from refusing to comply with an arbitration clause when it receives a 'direct benefit' from a contract containing an arbitration clause.""""",2009
"the reasoning of our precedent, which we reject today, would mean that any prevailing market rates obtained by any non-profit legal organization affiliated with any public organization, such as the naacp or the sierra club, would allow their respective organizations to obtain an indirect benefit by decreasing the amount which each organization would need to raise to continue their non-legal activities.",2010
"believing, as we do, that there is no basis for a presumption of vindictiveness where a second sentence imposed after a trial is heavier than a first sentence imposed after a guilty plea, we overrule simpson v. rice, supra, to that extent.",2011
"id. at 658, 505 n.w.2d 553. our supreme court held:   we read these provisions of the vehicle code and the no-fault insurance act in pari materia as indicating that an unexpired registration plate affixed to the vehicle serves as presumptive evidence that the vehicle is validly registered with the secretary of state, and that it carries the statutorily mandated no-fault automobile insurance.",2012
"accordingly, we overrule the portions of tamara r. that are inconsistent with this holding.",2013
"this decision will be consistent with quenzer in general, although a somewhat different factual situation on jurisdiction was presented and expressly supersedes rosics in regard to the unmentioned pkpa-defined retained decree state jurisdiction.",2014
"this balancing concern was the basis of our decision in lucas, which the majority overrules today.",2015
we take this opportunity to clarify the definition of statutory nonhearsay pursuant to nrs 51.035.,2016
"in people v. rudolph ( supra ), the court of appeals, overruling precedent, held that the statutory command in cpl 720.20(1) that the sentencing court address youthful offender status when a defendant is eligible for such status cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request",2017
we hold that the underwriter is not liable for the excess and in doing so overrule nebel towing.,2018
"bradley fails to show that a rational jury could not have found that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, supports her conviction beyond reasonable doubt.",2019
{12} here the trial court then determined there was a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.,2020
"even if the fourth amendment had required the officer to comply with the letter of the implied consent law, the blood test result would have been admissible under the inevitable discovery   doctrine.",2021
" lerma, 877 f.3d 631 (quoting mathis, 136 s. ct. at 2249).",2022
"as such, we also conclude that the defendant's cell phone was lawfully seized incident to his arrest.",2023
"because of supreme court precedent to the contrary, we now disapprove of these cases to the extent they hold, as a general rule, that a trial court need not test lesser sanctions before imposing death penalty sanctions.",2024
"dr. hardin testified as to the extent of hayes's injuries, the number and kinds of procedures she had endured, and the extent of her recovery.",2025
"smith, 355 s.w.3d at 148.",2026
"we see no intelligent reason longer to adhere to and accordingly we overrule, the holdings in state v. williams, 340 so.2d 1382 (la. 1976) and state v. williams, 322 so.2d 177 (la. 1975), that excessiveness of sentence may not be reviewed in the absence of formal objection  there being no statutory requirement for such objection, and there being no remaining functional reason for these decisions' court-imposed requirement for the technicality of requiring an objection for such purpose.",2027
"jorgensen v. coppedge, 148 idaho 536, 538, 224 p.3d 1125, 1127 (2010); dillon v. montgomery, 138 idaho 614, 617, 67 p.3d 93, 96 (2003); bingham v. montane res. assocs., 133 idaho 420, 427, 987 p.2d 1035, 1042 (1999).",2028
id. at 438 (citations omitted).,2029
"therefore, we overrule williams, clarify hernandez-hernandez, vacate gonzales's sentence and remand for resentencing.",2030
"there, the cleveland board of education fired loudermill, a security guard, after determining that he had lied on his job application when he stated that he had never been convicted of a felony.",2031
"thus, we hold that henceforth prohibition may not be employed to raise the defense of workers' compensation immunity.",2032
section 1311(a) contains important exceptions to the prohibition on discharge of pollutants.,2033
we therefore overrule hart and reverse the district court's order denying the motion on the merits and remand for the district court to treat harris' motion as a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus and to provide harris with an opportunity to cure any pleading defects.,2034
"as will be discussed below, the court finds that reversing its position and placing the ultimate burden of proving subparts (a) or (b) on the debtor in no way prejudices her under the facts of this case.",2035
"title vii's administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to suit but rather a prudential prerequisite under our binding precedent, and fort bend forfeited its exhaustion argument by not raising it in a timely manner before the district court.",2036
"even though we have not been referred to a clear constitutional provision or doctrine invalidating the jurisdiction conferred by section 3.2, petitioner has cited statements and language in a number of authorities in support of its position, including those statements in city of pasadena v. railroad com., supra, 183 cal. 526, heretofore disapproved.",2037
"to the extent that ozuna can be read to hold that the bexar county notice of dismissal apprises parties of the court's intent to dismiss on a ground other than the failure to appear under rule 165a(1), or that knight v. trent, 739 s.w.2d 116 (tex.app.  san antonio 1987, no writ), gaebler v. harris, 625 s.w.2d 5 (tex.app.-san antonio 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and laird v. jones, 580 s.w.2d 413 (tex.app.-san antonio 1979, no writ), imply that a party may be charged with such notice, we disapprove of the language of those cases.",2038
"compare 307 f. 3d, at 1017, with aclu foundation v. bridges, 334 f. 3d 416, 421-423 (ca5 2003) (tia bars federal action seeking to have any part of a state's tax system declared unconstitutional).",2039
"accordingly, in brown, the court expressly limited the scope of estrada: """"estrada is today properly understood, not as weakening or modifying the default rule of prospective operation codified in section 3, but rather as informing the rule's application in a specific context by articulating the reasonable presumption that a legislative act mitigating the punishment for a particular criminal offense is intended to apply to all nonfinal judgments.""""",2040
he appears to be smooching a large wad of money.,2041
"because castillo may be interpreted to require both personal knowledge and trustworthy information, we overrule it and its progeny only to the extent that it requires both kinds of information to support probable cause.",2042
"after the august 4, 2015 judgment, frauenshuh had no reason to perceive any judicial error with respect to the association's claim against frauenshuh for kraus-anderson's defective construction, and frauenshuh's rule 60.02 motion is not based on a judicial error in the district court's original ruling.",2043
"for that reason, we disapprove people v. graham, supra, 83 cal.app.3d 736, to the extent it so requires.",2044
"because division of labor law enforcement v. barnes, supra, 205 cal.app.2d at p. 346, erroneously relied on jeffreys v. hancock (1881) 57 cal. 646, it held that an attachment defendant may not sue for damages arising from an alleged wrongful attachment in the same action in which the attachment issued, and to that extent it must be disapproved",2045
"weconnect's evidence was neither newly discovered nor unknown; moreover, it could easily have produced these documents and affidavits the first time around.",2046
"see ultreras, 296 kan. at 853.",2047
defense counsel questioned grimes at length about what defendant had been wearing and whether he had made inconsistent statements about defendant's shirt and boots.,2048
"accordingly, we recede from any suggestion in pembroke pines that the supreme court's holding in lake county indicates that a court can never separately analyze each of the services funded within an integrated fire services budget to insure that each component survives the required special benefits test.",2049
"compare united states v. ibarra-galindo, 206 f. 3d 1337 (ca9 2000) (in sentencing case, state-law felony is an aggravated felony); united states v. pornes-garcia, 171 f. 3d 142 (ca2 1999) (same), with cazarezgutierrez v. ashcroft, 382 f. 3d 905 (ca9 2004) (in immigration case, state-law felony is not an aggravated felony); aguirre v. ins.",2050
"see also state v. rose, 11th dist. lake no. 2016-l-067, 2017-ohio-4235, 15.",2051
our decision here necessarily overrules hyman.,2052
"accordingly, we grant guzman's petition for review, reverse the board's order, and remand guzman's case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.",2053
clark implicitly overrules our cases holding that harmless error analysis is inapplicable where the defendant contests intent.,2054
"as we have previously observed, rule 21 is not designed to swap in new plaintiffs for the sake of securing a judicial determination on the merits where the original plaintiffs no longer have a stake in the outcome.",2055
the majority properly rejects our prior holding in united states v. rosen,2056
"we granted certiorari in redden and quashed the order under review, so no harm is done, but we specifically recede from that decision.",2057
"an agency's authority to adopt administrative rules is governed by the minnesota administrative procedures act (mapa), minn. stat.  14.001-.69",2058
"million dollars.""""",2059
"see 15 u.s.c.  1692a(6) (""""the term 'debt collector' means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another""""; chiang v. verizon new england, inc., 595 f.3d 26, 41 (1st cir. 2010) (""""creditors collecting on their own accounts are generally excluded from the [fdcpa's] reach"""" unless they use """"any name other than [their] own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts"""").",2060
"considering the totality of the voir dire record and moore's answers, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the   defendant's challenge for cause.",2061
the majority claims the court of appeals read the pra statute of limitations (rcw 42.56.550(6) ) too narrowly in tobin v. worden,2062
"musser davis land co. v union pac. res., 201 f.3d 561, 563, (5th cir. 2000) (citing exxon corp. v. crosby-miss res., ltd., 154 f.3d 202, 205 (5th cir. 1998)).",2063
morris is therefore overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with this principle.,2064
"""""when a defendant moves for dismissal, the trial court is to determine whether there is substantial evidence (a) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (b) of defendant's being the perpetrator of the offense.""""",2065
"because, as a result, we overrule people v. caudillo (1978) 21 cal.3d 562 ( caudillo), we do not apply the holding retroactively to defendant.",2066
the sentencing commission's commentary fully supports this construction.,2067
"we have ultimately determined that we were in error in the statutory construction reached by these decisions, for the reasons to be stated below, and therefore overrule them prospectively, see state v. ray, 259 la. 105, 245 so.2d 540 (1971), as of the date of publication of this opinion in the southern reporter.",2068
"southern reporter. appeal from jefferson circuit court, bessemer division",2069
"accordingly, the legislature has ipso facto made clear that semen, pregnancy, or disease, while perhaps related to sex, are not themselves the specific instances of sexual conduct envisioned by mcl 750.520j.",2070
" hill v. hill , 244 n.c. app. 219, 22324, 781 s.e.2d 29, 3334 (2015) (alternation in original) (citations omitted).",2071
"we quash carter, approve nathan, young, austin, and sneed, and disapprove the reasoning in bover to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.",2072
"applicability, compact oxford english dictionary 64 (2d ed. 1987).",2073
"of the twenty-one jurisdictions referred to by the court as applying the rule, six have since expressly overruled their earlier decisions on which this court relied: massachusetts (to the extent of automobile liability insurance), minnesota, new jersey, new york, pennsylvania, and virginia (in automobile accident litigation only).",2074
"second, there are material differences between the parole act and parole code. for example, as petitioner himself pointed out in his pro se petition, the parole code vests the board with discretion, in certain situations, to award a convicted parole violator with credit for time spent at liberty on parole.",2075
"state v. jefferson, supra; state v. williams, supra and state v. beard, supra, are therefore overruled to the extent that they are in conflict with this opinion.",2076
"the victim told police that she thought she heard a trigger being pulled, but neither of the guns went off. during his plea colloquy, defendant agreed that the victim """"was afraid that [defendant] was going to shoot her.""""",2077
the post-conviction court failed to address whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the petitioner's conviction for aggravated robbery relative to ms. williams in its written order.,2078
"to the extent that the bingham case and the state national bank case, referred to above, are inconsistent with the views expressed in this opinion, they are now over-ruled.",2079
"for the reasons that follow, we approve the first district in the instant case and disapprove the decisions of the fourth district.",2080
"upon our review, we find the verdicts were not inconsistent based on how the case was charged to the jury.",2081
"capps, 300 ga. at 8 (2).",2082
"see brown v. state,",2083
he argues his postconviction petition stated an arguable claim that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because his counsel did not argue on direct appeal that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss juror cross for cause.,2084
we recede from fernandez v. state,2085
"plaintiffs' remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.",2086
"{8} """"'(t)his court utilizes r.c. 2953.08(g) as the standard of review in all felony sentencing appeals.'",2087
"in keeping with this purpose, the federal circuit expressly overruled the dictum in rca that was informed by the totality of the circumstances test and which suggested that something less than a formal offer for sale could still trigger the on-sale bar.",2088
"we further recede from our decisions in metropolitan dade county v. marusa, 295 so.2d 704 (fla. 3d dca 1974), and victor v. stierheim, 380 so.2d 1319 (fla. 3d dca 1980), to the extent that they may conflict with our holding in the present case.",2089
and we agree.,2090
the scope of a warrantless search of an automobile is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.,2091
"( 4056, subd. (a)(3).)",2092
"as an aside, the steelvest court indicated that under the common law civil conspiracy-type claims result in joint and several liability.",2093
id. at 456.,2094
"we hold that esco mistakenly applied ross in the context of a dismissal of an election-contest petition, and we overrule esco to the extent that it provides that the dismissal of election-contest actions for failure to satisfy jurisdictional ( i.e., nonmerits) prerequisites can be with prejudice.",2095
"the court improperly concluded that the viability of the presumption of [section 6381(d) ] is questionable and inherently self-rebutting, such that it would be arbitrary and capricious to apply the presumption in cases where the trial court finds that it cannot determine if the parent had responsibility for the child.",2096
"for the reasons expressed, we approve the decision in the instant case and disapprove the decision of the third district court of appeal in fernandez.",2097
"alvarez-machain'?, cursory analysis contains two errors that lead us to overrule it.",2098
i join the court's opinion.,2099
"but detective kabler's report states that while detective baker conducted the initial interview with defendant, both detectives ultimately interviewed him together.",2100
"saint peter's healthcare system runs a teaching hospital and several other medical facilities in new jersey, and is both owned and controlled by a roman catholic diocese there.",2101
"retitled """"written deposition,"""" the proposed form was intended to be completed by the evaluator and reflect the evaluator's assessment of the capacity of the alleged incapacitated person.",2102
"see bell v. state, 108 so. 3d 639, 648 (fla. 2013) (rejecting burden-shifting argument: """"when considered in context, the prosecutor's comment is properly understood as a statement on the jury's duty to analyze the evidence presented at trial followed by the prosecutor's argument regarding what conclusion the jury should reach from the evidence."""").",2103
we overrule the holding in trulock on this point.,2104
"on february 2, 2017, the vop court filed a brief opinion indicating that it would not opine on any issues given counsel's intent to file an",2105
"martinez, 127 s.w.3d at 794-95; coleman v. state, 440 s.w.3d 218, 223-24 (tex.app.--houston [14th dist.] 2013, no pet.). generally, unspecific offers to help are not likely to induce one to make an untruthful statement and will not invalidate a confession.",2106
"there was some discussion of the superintendent's report before the board voted upon it in the november 17 meeting, but the record is unclear as to the extent of that discussion.",2107
"however, for the sake of clarity, to the extent it may be inconsistent with this opinion, we, again, overrule adventist.",2108
"father next challenges several portions of mother's testimony that, he alleges, painted an unjustified picture of him as hot-tempered and cruel.",2109
"because his indictment refers only to those facts, he argues that no crime was occurring after the officers fell to the pavement.",2110
the prosecutor followed this up by saying:,2111
"29 additionally, even if the state had allowed the plea, he has not shown that the trial court would have accepted a plea when he denied the nonconsensual confinement facts in the complaint as to false imprisonment or would have accepted an",2112
"if the defendant is seeking to vacate a sentence, the second prong requires that the newly discovered evidence would probably yield a less severe sentence.",2113
"after considering these arguments, we agree that king should be overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with the plain language of the provisions at issue.",2114
"accordingly, we affirm in part, and in part reverse and remand with directions.",2115
"accordingly, we agree with the defendants that colquitt should not be followed; to the extent that colquitt is inconsistent with our opinion in this case, colquitt is overruled.",2116
"state v. schwaderer, supra.",2117
it is our opinion that smith v. commonwealth should be and it is hereby overruled.,2118
he states that he seeks to preserve the issue for further review.,2119
aetna therefore is overruled as the law of this circuit.,2120
"although we conclude the commission's new interpretation is not supported by the statutory language, our inquiry is not over because we must also consider whether das network operators' services include actually furnishing cmrs. crown castle asserts that the commission's conclusion that das network operators furnish cmrs is erroneous because its network cannot furnish (supply or provide) cmrs where it: has no control over the generation of the radio transmissions that are transported via its network; has no license for spectrum to facilitate the radio communication between the node and the end-user's cell phone - the wsp owns that spectrum; and has no customer relationship with that end-user - who is the wsp's customer.",2121
ms. matlock argues that the alj failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence related to her mental impairments.,2122
"therefore, to the extent that our decision in maise conflicts with our holding in the case before us, maise is overruled.",2123
" brockett v. spokane arcades, inc., 472 u.s. 491, 501 (1985) (citations omitted).",2124
"the defendant then filed a motion for new trial on march 2, 2017, which the commonwealth opposed and a judge denied.",2125
"baker/gray then held that self-defense is an intentional act and second-degree manslaughter and reckless homicide are unintentional acts; a fortiori, an act committed in self-defense can never constitute the crimes of second-degree manslaughter or reckless homicide, overruling blake v. commonwealth.",2126
"however, because the stalking statute proscribes an entire course of conduct, """"a second or successive offense is not necessarily committed by acts that are factually distinct from each other but only by acts that are factually distinct from the entire course of conduct punished by the first conviction.""""",2127
"we also overrule that portion of berry v. mclemore, 670 f.2d 30, 34 (5th cir. 1982), in which we relied on jones to find an abuse of discretion in the district court's failure to assess as an item of costs the full fee of an expert witness who was ""important"" to the plaintiff's  1983 case.",2128
this is because the law generally assumes that a person who encounters such conditions will take care to avoid any danger inherent therein.,2129
"app. 2004) (quoting 2003 minn. laws 1st spec. sess. ch. 2, art. 9,  1, at 1446), review denied (minn.",2130
see ante at .,2131
"""catalyst theory,"" allowing that result, is no longer available for that purpose, see farrar, ___ u.s. at ___, 113 s.ct. at 573-74, and cases such as bonnes v. long, 599 f.2d 1316 (4th cir. 1979), which applied that theory, are overruled.",2132
"insofar as the smith, labatt, john shillito and gibson cases (supra) are in conflict herewith, they are expressly overruled.",2133
"summary judgment may be granted only when there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of   law.",2134
any language in shymanovitz to the contrary is disapproved.,2135
"we do not ask whether ferc's """"decision is the best one possible or even whether it is better than the alternatives.""""",2136
the vehicle appeared to be the same one the officer had observed from the highway.,2137
"accordingly, we hereby overrule hicks and its progeny, including thomas v. state, 284 ga. 327328(1), 667 s.e.2d 375 (2008) and capote v. ray, 276 ga. 1, 2(1), 577 s.e.2d 755 (2002).",2138
"that was the mandatory minimum under the armed career criminal act (""""the acca"""" or """"the act""""), and the district court imposed it because of peppers's previous convictions.",2139
"to the extent some cases have held differently, we disapprove of them.",2140
"see 20 c.f.r.  pt. 404, subpt. p, app. 1.",2141
"id.   37 a jury convicted the defendant in lerma of first degree murder based on evidence """"consit[ing] solely of two eyewitness identifications.""""",2142
"we think that his analysis of peerless roll leaf co. v. griffin sons, was altogether correct, and that he had no alternative but to follow that decision; on the other hand, we now think that we were then wrong and that the decision must be overruled for reasons we shall state.",2143
we also disapprove the language from hilton suggesting that an offer of proof must vouch for the anticipated testimony.,2144
"requiring parties to make their objections clear on the record is not an onerous burden, and it is one that ensures that the bankruptcy court is squarely presented with the facts and legal arguments necessary to reach a reasoned decision considering the interests of all affected parties.",2145
see tex. r. app. p. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).,2146
"""""if any such challenge to the underlying conviction is successful, the defendant may then apply for reopening of his federal sentence.""""",2147
"on rehearing the majority reasserts its position that johnston v. nanney is controlling and quotes from pellegrini v. mccarthy for the purpose of showing mccarthy v. gonnet has been impliedly overruled, thus apparently suggesting pellegrini as an added reason why johnston is controlling here.",2148
"the district court granted the stipulated motion to dismiss, id., at 39a, and respondents appealed.",2149
we take this opportunity to expressly overrule christian v. christian.,2150
"""""the statute does not simply govern applicable procedures; it obliterates the debtor's liability.""""",2151
"the result reached by the trial court is consistent with our recent opinion in orlando/orange county expressway authority v. w f agrigrowth-fernfield, ltd., 582 so.2d 790 (fla. 5th dca), rev. denied, 591 so.2d 183 (fla. 1991).",2152
"id. at 1005 (baer, j., concurring).",2153
"c. overcoming the presumption of undue influence  27. although we do not find that the chancellor erred by failing to address whether a presumption of undue influence arose, we hold that, based on the record and the chancellor's findings, if such presumption arose, davis successfully rebutted it.  28.",2154
"we have reassessed dorsey and overrule it, finding its arguments unpersuasive when considered in the light of the demands of fair and efficient administration of justice.",2155
"where hollins is contradictory to the ""duty-to-read"" and ""imputed-knowledge"" doctrines, it is hereby overruled.",2156
we need rely only on the following ground to affirm: a reasonable person could have denied the ad&d claim based on captain eck's pre-existing condition having contributed to his cause of death.,2157
77 so.2d 845 is modified so as to conform to the view expressed herein.,2158
"for that reason, insofar as berry v. struble, supra, 20 cal.app.2d 299, holds that even apart from the application of section 1542 the release cannot be avoided, it and the cases following it on this point are disapproved.",2159
"thus, we disapprove of the reasoning of bates, which was followed in owens and soriano, and we approve judge sharp's dissent in owens.",2160
"first, the federal laches standard is no longer good law.",2161
we overrule so much of kerwin as holds that a criminal defendant is not entitled to inspect and make an analysis of the seized controlled substance.,2162
"we understand the difficult decision the juvenile court faced in confronting conflicting presumptions of parentage, neither of them ideal.",2163
we hold that the above statement in hardin v. sellers was dicta and that it does not accurately state the law.,2164
"to the extent that jure held that the peremptive period of la.r.s. 9:5606 does not begin to run until the conclusion of an appeal in the underlying action and that la.r.s. 9:5606 does not displace the ""continuous representation rule"" of lima v. schmidt , jure is overruled.",2165
"we do not believe that this procedure is necessary, and we overrule littrell to the extent it limits the commonwealth's appeal of a new trial order to a certification of the law.",2166
we find no error in the trial court's judgment.,2167
"the commonwealth is correct that the boulware panel opined that a defendant must prove his privacy interest before the commonwealth's burden of production is triggeredfor the reasons discussed infra, that holding is disapproved.",2168
"we disapprove wilkerson v. wells fargo bank (1989) 212 cal.app.3d 1217 [ 261 cal.rptr. 185], the only published court of appeal decision adopting a broader view of the jury's function in this species of wrongful discharge litigation.",2169
g. state writ petition,2170
"defendant's class x conviction of armed violence is governed by sections 33a-2 and 33a-3 of the criminal code of 2012 (720 ilcs 5/33a-2(a), 33a-3(a) (west 2014)).",2171
these and other statements in the opinion in that case are inconsistent with the decisions of this court both before and after it on the subject of the judicial power of the commission.,2172
"to the extent that these decisions are inconsistent with the views hereinafter expressed, they are disapproved.",2173
"id. a first-party bad-faith claim involves """"an insured's attempt to recover for his or her own losses allegedly covered under the insurance policy.""""",2174
""""" (people v. berryman (1993) 6 cal.4th 1048, 1085, overruled on other grounds in people v. hill (1998) 17 cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1.)",2175
"a pure """"charge offense"""" system, however, also has serious problems.",2176
"accordingly, we approve the first district's decision affirming scantling's sentence and receding from currelly.",2177
"to the extent language in griffiths can be read to suggest that the charge in this case was appropriate, it is hereby overruled.",2178
"any holding by this or any other court which is contrary to the holding we make today, is overruled.",2179
"to the extent winkle v. jones, ky., 265 s.w.2d 792 (1954), and harvey coal corp. v. smith, ky., 268 s.w.2d 634 (1954), are inconsistent with this decision, they are overruled.",2180
"the decisions on which welton principally relied, including united states v. harris, 536 f.3d 798, 813 (7th cir. 2008); united states v. clanton, 538 f.3d 652, 660 (7th cir. 2008); and united states v. millbrook, 553 f.3d 1057, 1067 (7th cir. 2009), likewise are overruled on this issue.",2181
"thereafter, the fourth court of appeals abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing to resolve issues related to the accuracy of the reporter's record.",2182
"here, the district court awarded almost the maximum amount of enhanced damages, but did not adequately explain its basis for doing so, and failed to even mention campbell's public use defense, which presented a close question in this case.",2183
defendant's exhibit c shows that officer butler conducted the rfi evaluation in 2008.,2184
"applying the four-factor test from barker v. wingo, 407 u.s. 514 (1972), the district court first found that """"the delay . . . of nearly six years create[d] a presumption of prejudice and justifie[d] further inquiry.""""",2185
"to the extent that dicta in sheridan could be read otherwise, we reject that dicta.",2186
"if some evidence supports a court's decision to impose sanctions, we will not hold that it abused its discretion.",2187
"apart from its articulation that the crime was serious in nature and that the society must be protected from dangerous offenders, the trial court did not consider some of the nonexhaustive factors that are relevant in determining whether a sentence is proportionate.",2188
"the declarant's impression need not be corroborated by an """"independent and equally percipient observer,"""" booth, 306 md. at 327, 508 a.2d at 982,   so long as the declarant renders his or her recollection of the events perceived.",2189
"to the extent that in re beychok, 484 so.2d 912 (la.app. 1 cir. 1986), conflicts with the decision sub judice, it is reversed.",2190
"that part of duncan which holds there cannot be two convictions where the death of one person is a ""material element"" in two capital charges is incorrect and due to be overruled on that narrow point.",2191
"however, if it is shown on the trial of a felony of the second degree that the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony, then on conviction the defendant shall be punished for a felony of the first degree.",2192
"accordingly, we recognized in coopers & lybrand that """"[w]hatever similarities or differences there are between plaintiffs and defendants in this context involve questions of policy for congress.""""",2193
appellant's ground of error is accordingly overruled.,2194
we agree and overrule mukhtar to the extent that it required that daubert findings always be made by the district court.,2195
"here the defendants did not cause the overdetention because they could not have initiated an arraignment and, as discussed below, the plaintiffs have disavowed any argument that the sheriff or wardens could have ordered release.",2196
"to the extent that people v. wilson, 224 cal.app.2d 738 [ 37 cal.rptr. 42], is inconsistent with this conclusion it is disapproved.",2197
"we granted certiorari, 540 u.s. 945 (2003), and now reverse.",2198
"to the extent the decision in babcock v. omansky, 31 cal.app.3d 625 [ 107 cal.rptr. 512], indicates the contrary, it is incorrect.",2199
"here, there similarly was an accrued claim against his insurer that was held by hensley for payment of health care services that had already been provided by plaintiffs before hensley executed the assignment.",2200
"in addition, """"a mandatory injunction is the proper means of enforcing a restrictive agreement affecting real estate.""""",2201
"in so finding, we not only look to the facts of easterling but also the facts of those cases it explicitly overruled.",2202
"had we intended deliberately to take an opposite view of section 16(c) (8 usca  216(c), we should certainly have said so; our decision is overruled.",2203
"the federation argued that """"a change to an 84-hour bi-weekly base pay calculation was never raised by the county until after the [mos] was signed and only then, in the form of a proposed legislative change,"""" and therefore, """"the county's actions were unilateral and, as applied, adversely change[d] the pay practices for the 911 call center 40-hour classified employees.""""",2204
"to the extent that adams holds that there can be no recovery for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, it is disapproved.",2205
"the defendants asserted that there were obvious statute-of-limitations problems with the key claims, that publically available court records contradict most of tobey's key factual assertions, and that his attorneys failed to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to filing the action.",2206
we consider this opinion en banc in order to clarify our opinion in clark v. state.,2207
"to the extent it is inconsistent with this analysis, we disapprove sweat v. hollister (1995).",2208
"id. prejudice or injury may be created if a party, with knowledge of the relevant facts, permits the passing of time to work a change of circumstances by the other party.",2209
the order of the appellate division should be affirmed.,2210
"to the extent that park suggests that the factual predicates for an undertaking duty are to be decided by the court, we disapprove it.",2211
"insofar as inconsistent with trappey and our decision herein, we overrule the cited intermediate decisions in leger, cockerham, and bersuder, as well as obiol v. industrial outdoor displays, 288 so.2d 425 (la.app. 4th cir. 1974) which followed them.",2212
"state v. baker, 453 md. 32, 47 (2017) (quoting simmons v. state, 436 md. 202, 213 (2013)).",2213
"see commonwealth v. beverly, 389 mass. 866, 870 (1983).",2214
we also disapprove the decision of the fourth district in watson.,2215
"based on the evidence of record cited by the trial court, we conclude that sufficient evidence did exist on the record to warrant submission of septa to the jury for apportionment of liability.",2216
"to the extent flint hill and lake st. louis hold that adoption of a resolution of intent to annex is the first valid step of an annexation, they are overruled.",2217
"to the extent that any of our cases hold that direct evidence is required to establish a mixed-motive case, they are no longer good law.",2218
"defendants argued that public release of the information in the stipulation would violate their right to privacy, put them at a competitive disadvantage in business transactions, and jeopardize their safety and the safety of their families.",2219
"accordingly, we overrule sanchez as to its ultimate conclusion.",2220
"one was from her accounting expert, tom levato. levato identified scores of purported deficiencies in john's production of documents during discovery.",2221
"the same evidence supports the jury's true finding of the special circumstances allegation, which requires an intent to kill and an intent """" 'to cause extreme pain or suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or another sadistic purpose.'",2222
"the lee count justice court drug court began operation in 2009, after the text of subsection (2)(a)(v) was operative.",2223
"to the extent the daum language may be construed to sanction the award of interest on interest in the absence of an agreement for such payment, it is disapproved.",2224
"accordingly, to the extent crawford and abrams may be read to require the assistance of counsel during an initial summary proceeding where a defendant is found guilty of direct criminal contempt, prior to separate proceedings where the defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, those cases are expressly disapproved.",2225
to hold otherwise would be to permit counsel to frivolously expose their adversaries to unnecessary litigation costs.,2226
it was the petitioner's burden to prove that the statute of limitations should   be tolled on due process grounds.,2227
""""" 'a contract entered into by a local government without legal  authority is """"wholly void,"""" ultra vires, and unenforceable.'",2228
"based on that de novo review, this court in abshire ii found the plaintiffs met the numerosity requirement.",2229
"if the statutory text is ambiguous, however, we turn to rules of statutory construction to determine its meaning.",2230
"(id. at 94, 107-09, r.r. at 99a, 112a-114a.)",2231
that interpretation of  6-5-125 is overruled.,2232
"green v. state, 934 s.w.2d 92, 102 (tex. crim. app. 1996) (internal quotations omitted).",2233
"sept. 21, 2010).",2234
"the statute says nothing about assessing trial court costs against the defendant.""""",2235
"further, to the extent that any of this court's other reported opinions suggest an analysis contrary to the one set forth today, they are hereby disavowed.",2236
"the chief immigration judge has likewise instructed ijs that """"if an unaccompanied child is applying for special immigrant juvenile . . . status, the case must be administratively closed or reset for that process to occur in the appropriate state or juvenile court.""""",2237
"the order states that the assignors """"shall be treated as parties to the case for discovery purposes in producing documents and appearing for deposition . . . with the same protections and obligations applying to the assignors as apply to [the] parties.""""",2238
"the analysis below is included to satisfy our own, independent obligation to ensure that we have jurisdiction.",2239
"farac v. permanente med. group, 186 f.supp.2d 1042, 1045 (n.d.cal. 2002) ("" circuit city implicitly overruled duffield."");",2240
"the first section of part 2a of article 81b of chapter 15a of the north carolina general statutes is n.c.g.s.  15a-1340.19a, which is entitled """"applicability"""" and provides that """"a defendant who is convicted of first degree murder, and who was under the age of 18 at the time of the offense, shall be sentenced in accordance with this part."""" n.c.g.s.  15a-1340.19a",2241
"donnelly's claims""""negligence, careless conduct and wrongful tortious conduct""""are all causes of action that sound in tort.",2242
"third, floyd argues that, in refusing to find his substance abuse to be a mitigating circumstance, the trial court improperly required a causal connection between his substance abuse and the murder.",2243
"an appellate court may affirm a district court's ruling on any ground urged below, whether or not it formed the basis for the court's original ruling.",2244
"the state court rejected the argument as a bare, conclusory assertion.",2245
"halleck v. koloski, 4 ohio st.2d 76, 212 n.e.2d 601 (1965).",2246
sussex and berkoff each established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of labor law  240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against sussex.,2247
sosataquechel's affirmative answer to the court's plea colloquy question about whether he had an adequate opportunity to discuss the facts of the case and defenses thereto does not adequately resolve his present claim as to the defense of self-defense.,2248
it may well be expensive to obtain an opinion of counsel.,2249
"we affirm, and in so doing, we recede from sapphire condominium association v. amerivend corp., 691 so.2d 600 (fla. 4th dca 1997), and bridgeport inc. v. rinker materials corp.",2250
"in view of this holding, the decision in state ex rel. west virginia department of transportation v. cookman, 219 w.va. 601, 639 s.e.2d 693 (2006), is overruled in its entirety.",2251
"for the foregoing reasons, we overrule willis and hold that the cartwright act applies to the professions.",2252
"2011) (declining to resolve """"fundamental constitutional questions"""" involving other branches of government).",2253
"accordingly, we hereby overrule sharp v. state",2254
"in re h.b.c., 482 s.w.3d 696, 702 (tex. app.texarkana 2016, no pet.) (quotation marks and citation omitted).",2255
"section 6 somewhat codified and modified the cavnar rule by providing that ""[j]udgments in wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage cases must include prejudgment interest.""",2256
"thus, to the extent today's holding rests on a distinction between ""traditional"" governmental functions and their nontraditional counterparts, see ante, at 344, it cannot be reconciled with prior precedent.",2257
"ibid. based on its contract with opm, see app. to pet. for cert. 129a130a, coventry asserted a lien for $6,592.24",2258
"it did so, however, without considering irwin, and for that reason is overruled.",2259
" fatalgram 11-07, alaska dep't of labor & workforce dev., http://labor.state.ak.us/lss/forms/fatalgram_11-07.pdf.",2260
"moreover, insofar as they suggest that a party seeking a modification of a custody order must prove an overwhelming necessity for the change in custody, we hereby overrule ex parte martin and ex parte peppers.",2261
he asks us to overrule maxwell.,2262
"thus, in light of the supreme court's decision in sanderfoot, we overrule our prior decision in in re pederson, and hold that in a divorce setting as this, mr. catli may not avail himself of  522(f)(1) to avoid mrs. catli's lien.",2263
"contrary to applicant's assertion, the legal basis for his claim existed at the time of his direct appeal and initial habeas application.",2264
we disagree and disapprove jones as being inconsistent with our decision today.,2265
"that case did not address an officer-safety justification for the question; however, to the extent lee or any of our other precedent conflict with the rule we announce today, we expressly overrule them.",2266
"to the extent that hetzel and its progeny impose different or additional requirements in the settling of instructions in a civil case under fed.r.civ.p. 51, they also are hereby overruled.",2267
"kyles v. whitley, 514 u.s. 419, 115 s. ct. 1555, 131 l. ed. 2d 490 (1995); united states v. bagley, 473 u.s. 667, 105 s. ct. 3375, 87 l. ed. 2d 481 (1985); state v. green, 2016-0107 (la. 6/29/17), 225 so. 3d 1033, cert. denied, ___ u.s. ___, 138 s. ct. 459, 199 l. ed. 2d 338 (2017).",2268
we reject the reasoning and the result in that decision.,2269
"partee, 125 ill. 2d at 35.",2270
"in light of our decision to overrule prior precedent limiting the scope of  53a183 (a), we now must decide whether, as the defendant claims, constitutional principles of fair notice bar the state from retrying her under our more expansive construction of that provision.",2271
"in short, we reject the view, expressed in in re ishihara chemical co., that  1782 comes into play only when adjudicative proceedings are ""pending"" or ""imminent.""",2272
smithparker acknowledges this precedent but argues that it was wrongly decided.,2273
"accordingly, we overrule greenberg and conclude that federal courts may ""look through""  10petitions, applying the ordinary principles of federal-question jurisdiction to the underlying dispute as defined by vaden .",2274
"the third and fifth district courts of appeal have concluded, consistent with the first district, that miller is not retroactive, while the second and fourth district courts of appeal have held, to the contrary, that it is.",2275
"to the extent john w. is inconsistent with our opinion on this point, it is disapproved.",2276
"when carlton and caldwell began to leave underground atlanta, carlton waved down police.",2277
"if a contract is ambiguous, we review construction questions as questions of fact under the legal and factual sufficiency standards, and the scope of our review expands: """"[a]n ambiguous contract opens the door to parol evidence that sheds light on the parties' true intent.""""",2278
"accordingly, we quash the decision below and disapprove the first district's decision in toner.",2279
"plaintiffs filed the instant action seeking penalties and damages, urging that lammico failed to timely fund the settlement when it did not unconditionally tender the agreed upon sums by january 3, 2015.",2280
"cases such as people v. stathos, supra, 17 cal.app.3d 33, are disapproved insofar as they are inconsistent with the views expressed herein.",2281
"accordingly, from this time forward, the holdings in asher, blair and durham, to the extent they conflict with this opinion, should no longer be followed.",2282
"restitution of an excessive fee, therefore, can be ordered as a condition of readmission or reinstatement, and we recede from winn to the extent that it conflicts with this holding.",2283
"in 2017, cvpa moved for summary judgment on the ground that it """"had no knowledge of any lump in the board room carpet at any time prior to the alleged [a]ugust 25, 2013 incident and used reasonable care in maintaining the board room carpet.""""",2284
"nonetheless, the record is clear that, immediately upon confronting a.c., bernard no longer had consent to remain in the house.",2285
"to the extent that northwest arctic regional educ. attendance area v. alaska public service employees, local 71, 591 p.2d 1292, 1297 (alaska 1979) contains language to the contrary, we disapprove it.",2286
the double jeopardy proscription is intended to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct.,2287
"unlike mr. swann in dover, however, holzhauer did not offer expert testimony to attempt to explain why the escalator malfunctioned.",2288
"we agree with the court of appeals and the dissent, post, at 324-325 (opinion of thomas, j.), that ""[t]he settlement agreement and promissory note here, coupled with the broad language of the release, completely addressed and released each and every underlying state law claim.",2289
"highlands is therefore overruled, with the approval of the court en banc, with judges byrnes and williams dissenting from the overruling.",2290
division two of the court of appeals rejected tobin's narrow reading of the events sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations.,2291
"in support of its position, the court cited several cases from foreign jurisdictions.",2292
"this court's prior holding in atoka, inc. v. thornton, 566 s.w.2d 686 (tex.civ.app.  eastland 1978, no writ), is expressly overruled insofar as it holds that an order of dismissal for want of prosecution also disposes of the cross action by implication.",2293
"434 n.w.2d at 116 n.2 (marshall, j., dissenting).",2294
"accordingly, to the extent our decision in ashness is inconsistent with this opinion, we decline to follow it.",2295
"to the extent that tendai and mendelsohn suggest otherwise as regards the standard of review, they are overruled.",2296
"to the extent that hurth v. state, 688 so.2d 275 (ala.cr.app. 1995), conflicts with this case, it is due to be overruled.",2297
"we overrule our prior opinions in state farm mutual auto insurance co. v. kay, 26 utah 2d 195, 487 p.2d 852, and kay v. kay, 30 utah 2d 94, 513 p.2d 1372, to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.",2298
"johnson v. state, supra, is overruled along with its progeny.",2299
"the fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of operating while under the influence of liquor did not """"preclude their consideration of the evidence of intoxication in considering the negligent operation charge.""""",2300
"to the extent that central computer servs. would dictate a different holding, it is overruled.",2301
 42 we find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's finding that the affidavits complied with the requirements of rule 191. both cassem and levinson had a sufficient degree of personal knowledge of the facts asserted in their affidavits by virtue of their employment with or for the funds.,2302
in the wake of hauserincluding this courthave declined to allow such an individual action to proceed.,2303
mendez and alterra healthcare are not in accord with this principle.,2304
80 a.3d at 1013.,2305
brown eventually lost consciousness due to defendant's actions.,2306
but any language in the fried case which is inconsistent with this opinion is hereby overruled.,2307
"the contentions in the father's brief in opposition to the motion are raised for the first time on appeal and therefore are not properly before us (see matter of paige k. [jay j.b.], 81 ad3d 1284, 1284 [4th dept 2011]).",2308
"under ors 137.123(1), """"[a] sentence shall be deemed to be a concurrent term unless the judgment expressly provides for consecutive sentences.""""",2309
id. at 248 (citations & quotation marks omitted).,2310
the royal & sun opinion articulated those factors as follows:,2311
miranda admitted to the dhs's factual allegations and conceded removability.,2312
we approve the decision below and disapprove cecil to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.,2313
"after the time period has expired, the trial court still has discretion to enlarge the time period if the moving party can demonstrate excusable neglect in addition to cause.",2314
"see bock v. united states, 375 f.2d 479, 480 (9th cir. 1967).",2315
"this court must consider any affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact.",2316
"the defendant did not testify at trial, but his report of the alleged assault to the police was put in evidence through the police officer and the recordings of his two 911 telephone calls.",2317
"while we realize that it is not strictly necessary, our holding, of course, overrules sherod.",2318
suding did not request a continuance and thus the issue is waived.,2319
"., 665 s.w.2d 414, 420 (tex. 1984); see also frazer v. tex. farm bureau mut. ins. co., 4 s.w.3d 819, 823-24 (tex. app.houston [1st dist.] 1999, no pet.) (with use of """"and its affiliated companies,"""" release sufficiently identified texas farm bureau underwriters such that its identity is not in doubt.). here, the release clearly and unambiguously stated it applied to all jumpstreet entities that are engaged in the trampoline business.",2320
"we, therefore, asked our colleagues to consider the appeal in banc on the briefs of the parties, they so voted, and this opinion represents the views of the full court.",2321
"to arrive at a solution to their perceived problem, the majority casually overrules bain v. state, 677 s.w.2d 51 (tex.cr.app. 1984), and dodson v. state, 646 s.w.2d 177 (tex.cr.app. 1980), simply on the mere pretext that the instant arrest was illegal.",2322
ct. app. 1990)).,2323
"when, as in this case, a controversy no longer exists between the parties, the case becomes moot.",2324
"prystash v. state, 3 s.w.3d 522, 531 (tex. crim. app. 1999) (applying invited-error doctrine to jury instructions in capital murder case and stating that """"[t]he doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel""""); see also 5 c.j.s., appeal & error  872 (""""an appellant or plaintiff in error is estopped, or will not be permitted, to take advantage of errors for the commission of which he or she is responsible . . . or . . . has invited or induced the trial court to commit.""""). others suggest it is grounded in waiver or """"the common sense view that where a party invites the trial court to commit error, he cannot later cry foul on appeal."""" united states v. brannan, 562 f.3d 1300, 1306 (11th cir. 2009).",2325
nowhere does peaches explain what remedy she would have had if the victim had refused her entry or ejected her from his home.,2326
"also see, coggins v. joseph, 504 so.2d 211, 213-14 (miss.",2327
"see ennis v. state, 122   nev. 694, 706, 137 p.3d 1095, 1103 (2006), the district court therefore did not err in denying this claim.",2328
"accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment in both appellate causes.",2329
"for these reasons, we overrule hoiles to the extent it stated that ""the engineer's work [on the bay view terrace map] . . . obliterated"" lots 21, 22, 23, and 25, and held that lots 21, 22, 23, and 25 were dedicated to the public as a beach.",2330
"rule 4007 further provides the time by which a complaint to determine dischargeability must be filed, which is """"no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under  341(a).""""",2331
a.a.b. is not harmed by our decision to disavow this aspect of m.e.r.,2332
"because the warrant was supported by probable cause, we reverse the order granting the motion to suppress and remand the case for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.",2333
it is rare that a sentence is so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to meet the threshold inquiry.,2334
"the court noted that the """"requirement of gubernatorial approval for obtaining a parole [has] the force of law, and is not a discretionary internal policy[.]""""",2335
"if anything said in mitchell or the other cases above cited be deemed in conflict with our holding in the case now before us, we disagree with it.",2336
interlocutory appeal from the district court,2337
"""""a district court may, however, permit discovery in a habeas proceeding if the 'petitioner presents specific allegations showing reason to believe that the facts, if fully developed, may lead the district court to believe that federal habeas relief is appropriate.'""""",2338
the case has never been cited in texas and we regard the holding to be contrary to subsequent supreme court and commission of appeals decisions and that it has therefore been overruled.,2339
"most error, even constitutional error, may be waived by the failure to properly put the trial court on   notice of the objection or request.",2340
"william hardy inc., v. commissioner, supra, 82 f.2d 249, is overruled, and the order will be affirmed.",2341
"we apply this standard to determine whether excusing a prospective juror in a capital case for cause based on the prospective juror's views on capital punishment violates the defendant's right to an impartial jury under article i, section 16 of the california constitution. [citations.]",2342
"see id.  73.001 (west 2017) (defining libel as """"defamation expressed in written or other graphic form"""").",2343
shook and similar cases should not be followed to the extent they require imputing income from retirement and ira accounts in every case.,2344
"see motion for a more definite statement and to dismiss and/or stay the complaint (apr. 27, 2015), available via file & servexpress.",2345
"following the denial of his motion to reconsider his sentence, the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.",2346
"(citing premier lab supply, inc. v. chemplex indus., inc., 10 so. 3d 202, 206-07 (fla. 4th dca 2009); hasley, 971 so. 2d at 152-53).",2347
the supreme court's decision in brown expressly disapproved of vallieres to the extent that it conflicted with its interpretation that the extension could be granted as long as the speedy trial time and recapture period had not expired.,2348
"contrary dicta contained in prior decisions (see people v. brock, supra, 66 cal.2d 645; people v. friend, supra, 50 cal. 2d at p. 578 and cases cited therein) are overruled.",2349
the exception to these jurisdictional limitations is when the sentence imposed is illegal.,2350
"to the extent that it holds to the contrary, murdoch i is overruled.",2351
id. at 657 n. 6.,2352
"the petition includes statements from state bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client security fund matters are pending against spitzer; and that he is current on all membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating to his practice of law in this state.",2353
"to the extent that the previous decisions of this court in jackson, lundy and peterson are inconsistent with this holding, we hereby recede from them.",2354
"the federal circuit's practice is therefore neither compelled by our cases nor supported by the ""case or controversy"" requirement of article iii.",2355
_____________________________________________________,2356
"(pariente, j., concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. denied, 138 s. ct. 471 (2017).",2357
baker is disapproved insofar as it is contrary to the views expressed herein.,2358
"given the legislature's intent to permit such a lawsuit, taswell was not required to exhaust judicial remedies and challenge the administrative decision by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus.",2359
"further, in mooney v. state, 1999 ok cr 34,  17, 990 p.2d 875, 70 o.b.j. 2412 (aug. 31, 1999), this court adopted ""the united states supreme court's decision in united states v. dixon, 589 u.s. 688, 113 s.ct. 2849, 125 l.ed.2d 556 (1993), overruling grady v. corbin, 495 u.s. 568, 110 s.ct. 2084, 109 l.ed.2d 548 (1990), and [did] away with the `same transaction' test.",2360
"to the extent that they hold or contain statements to the contrary, we disapprove of such cases as maytag v. united states, 153 ct. cl. 622, 289 f.2d 647; mays v. commissioner, 272 f.2d 788 (c.a. 6th cir.); commissioner v. stokes' estate, 200 f.2d 637 (c.a. 3d cir.); foss v. commissioner, 75 f.2d 326 (c.a. 1st cir.); washburn v. commissioner, 51 f.2d 949 (c.a. 8th cir.); sage v. commissioner, 15 t.c. 299; campbell v. commissioner, 11 t.c. 510; and cluett v. commissioner",2361
"tex. dep't of pub. safety v. foster, 398 s.w.3d 887, 890 (tex. app.dallas 2013, no pet.). under this standard, we conduct an independent analysis of the record, giving no deference to the trial court's conclusions.",2362
"to the extent that our opinion conflicts with doney, we hereby recede from doney.",2363
"any holding in minter v. state, 765 p.2d 803 (okla.",2364
"at the present time, we feel that we should follow the hamilton case and consider the lunkin case overruled.",2365
"the inverse process includes """"stuffing"""" containers off-site and eventually loading them onto the cargo ships for export at the   terminals.",2366
"goodley v. sullivant, supra, 32 cal.app.3d 619, cited approvingly in westlake community hosp. v. superior court (1976) 17 cal.3d 465, 482 [ 131 cal.rptr. 90, 551 p.2d 410], is disapproved to the extent it is inconsistent with views expressed herein.",2367
"##note: am. fed'n. labor v. unemployment ins. app. bd. is the case at bar, reversed.",2368
"to the extent that dicta in washington university suggests that a tort action should be brought rather than an action in inverse condemnation, that dicta is disapproved and should no longer be followed.",2369
"in the wake of johnson v. united states, 135 s. ct. 2251 (2015), dean filed a  2255 motion in which he argued that his convictions for attempted armed robbery and aggravated battery do not qualify as violent felonies under the """"elements clause"""" of the acca, 18 u.s.c.  924(e)(2)(b)(i).",2370
"in light of the apparent weight of authority and persuasive scholarly reasoning in support of defendant's position, we find that a sufficient and sound basis exists for departing from the malice in law standard followed in terry.",2371
"accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court of appeal in this case and disapprove the decision of the third district court of appeal in johnson to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.",2372
"if the quoted language means that a litigant may avoid the presumption merely by asking for findings on an issue without challenging the findings when actually made, we disapprove it, because such an interpretation is contrary to section 634",2373
lohmeier.,2374
stale information cannot be used to establish probable cause.,2375
"however, determining whether the requirements for class certification are met """"will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim.",2376
"we do so, and now hold spears is incorrect insofar as it precludes the possibility of harmless error under any circumstances; and to that extent, it must be overruled.",2377
"tex. code crim. proc. ann. art. 36.31 (west 2006); see melancon v. state, 66 s.w.3d 375, 383 (tex. app.houston [14th dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (en banc op. on reh'g).",2378
"apparently every other circuit has decided that the reasons against having the rule outweigh those that favor it, at least where the supreme court issues a decision that upsets precedent relevant to a pending case and thereby provides an appellant with a new theory or claim.",2379
"to the extent that it is contrary, the reasoning of matchett v. gould, 131 cal.app.2d 821 [ 281 p.2d 524], is erroneous and is disapproved.",2380
"therefore, we overrule ortiz and johnson to the extent that they hold that facts gathered during a valid traffic stop cannot be utilized to justify an investigatory detention occurring after a police officer has indicated that a defendant is free to leave.",2381
"id. like here, it was undisputed that schrock had permission to make the photographs.",2382
we therefore recede from lewis.,2383
"to the extent that people v. ulibarri, supra, can be read to hold that a defendant's failure to attend a suppression hearing automatically triggers an abandonment of the right to seek exclusion of or object to the challenged evidence, we decline to follow it.",2384
"but in light of the language and context of the statute and the term's common meaning and other uses, we cannot accept a definition that would find oppression on either of these bases alone, and we disapprove of the court of appeals decisions that have.",2385
"accordingly, to the extent that it conflicts with what we say here, christensen is overruled.",2386
"in re detention of rainey, 2017 il app (4th) 160496-u.",2387
it is our opinion that the huester ruling gave the section an unduly narrow construction; we overrule it and affirm the decision of the lower court on this point.,2388
"if we have a case where the conditions are not identical, then the dissimilarity goes to the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to its admissibility.",2389
"to the extent that the ica's opinion in state v. won , 134 hawai'i 59, 74, 332 p.3d 661, 676 (app. 2014), vacated on other grounds , 137 hawai'i 330, 372 p.3d 1065 (2015), ruled that severino denied an arrestee of a criminal offense the statutory right to access counsel under hrs  803-9, it is overruled.",2390
"clarity, 838 n.w.2d at 661 ; see  hauser, 782 n.w.2d at 154 (""""to the extent [the attorney] acknowledges his alcoholism and has taken steps to address it ..., we consider ",2391
"appellant francisco salazar appeals his convictions for one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child, one count of indecency with a child by sexual contact, and one count of sexual assault of a child.",2392
"for example, in jaffee v. jaffee, the court correctly stated the principle """"that an alimony award may not be modified because of a 'change' in the circumstances of the parties which was contemplated and considered when the original judgment or agreement was entered.""""",2393
"salmons urged that """"all of the elements of the felony of possession of pseudoephedrine are contained in the felony of the manufacture of methamphetamine,"""" but the court ruled that knowledge of the specific controlled substance was an element of each charge, so the separate prosecution for possessing pseudoephedrine did not violate double jeopardy.",2394
"the court relied on  64.875 which provides that """"no amendments shall be made by the county commission except after recommendation of the county planning commission . . . [and] after hearings thereon by the commission.""""",2395
"this notice must be posted in the waiting room, printed and distributed to all clients, or provided digitally at check-in.",2396
"we approve the decisions in woolard and marquez, disapprove the decision in morrison, and quash the decision below.",2397
"earls, 2017 ark. 171, at 9, 518 s.w.3d at 87.",2398
"but the most relevant definition of """"such"""" is """"of the character, quality, or extent previously indicated or implied.""""",2399