In Commonwealth v. Mendes the Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed its long standing admissibility rules and imposed an absolute ban on polygraph results as evidence. In Woodland v. City of Houston, the plaintiffs prevailed in their complaints against the City's use of the polygraph resulting in the ACLU setting new rules for polygraph tests of applicants. In Bennett v. City of Grand Prairie, the Texas appellate court concluded that polygraph evidence may be considered by a magistrate. Two polygraph cases, Pearson v. State and Smith v. State, involved claims of ineffective counsel. The polygraph issue in State v. Reyes (N.J. App. 1989) was whether the polygraph examiner should have been allowed to testify despite a signed stipulation that was in agreement with prior State case law. The Montana Supreme Court restated its ruling that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in the case State v. McPherson. Two cases, Casada v. State (Indiana) and State v. Reyes (New Jersey), relate to the issue of a stipulation signed by the defendant and the prosecuting attorney, but signed before the defendant had benefit of counsel. Legislation was passed in California abolishing the need for a polygraph license. In Nevada, one bill limits the use of pre-employment polygraph examinations and one bill prohibits polygraph examiners from asking a subject to waive liability. (Author abstract modified)