Last weekend I was in Port Saint Lucie and noticed NM cables stacked (2 cables) on each other and attached to block wall with staple. This was next to, but not attached, to furring strip. With this configuration can article 300.4(D) be satisfied without mechnical protection?

I have a .jpeg image showing this installation. Can I somehow attach?

First, you have to upload the photo to any available webspace. If your company has its own server then they can upload the photo for you.

Then, when you post back, click 'image' and insert the address where the photo is uploaded at. It will then appear in the post.

I addressed this in another note. It seems current thinking is the 1.25" can either be back away from the "nearest edge of the framing member" OR horizontally. I personally disagreee and think these should be in EMT or other metal protection but I am in the minority it seems.
Being 1.25" away horizontally may keep a good sheet rock installer who understands 16" centers, from hitting them but a homeowner hanging pictures may not be that lucky.

It used to be the standard practice to use EMT sleeves, when did it change?

Considering there has been no proposals by either the public or the TCC for this section in the last 2 codes cycles, I would assume that there has not been an issue that would necessitate a change.

It appears to me that the section is more concerned with in reference to the framing members where it is positively known a screw or nail will be used and not in refernce to the finish surface where a nail or screw might be driven. Unless significant substantiation can be shown that another dimension (depth) should be added for protection of cables, I doubt it will ever make it in the code. I think it would be a good proposal though.

I personally like to see the NM sleeved in a raceway or at least dropped through the void of the block.

Picture of installation.

I personally see nothing wrong with this installation. I don't think it is the best practice however I do think it meets the minimum code requirement.

The code didn't change, only the intrepretation.
I know that if you look at a home built before the 80s you will see the EMT sleeve. I had a Lee County inspector explain the hazard. (CBS is not that common up north so I was confused)
It made perfect sense to me, then the intrepretation changed.
I still think the hazard is greater for the homeowner than the sheet rocker. The rocker will be dealing with dead circuits and his screws are buried in mud when the power comes on. The homeowner is holding the nail he is driving in that wall and the circuit is energized.
I'm glad I didn't inspect much residential or I would have had some fights over this one.

Great picture.

As far as the code article we are discussing, I think it meets the intent. Maybe interpretation has changed over the years. Good point. I would still pass this.

However, I can't figure out how the box is mounted and it almost looks like box overfill, maybe it's the angle of the picturs. Remember the device counts as 2 and all the grounds count as 1.

I've never seen those boxes before. Nick, it looks like the box goes back into the wall to give the proper volume for box fill and the wide attaching plate covers any void when knocking the hole for the box, nifty,looks good and keeps the box away from the furring.

I don't know. Sorta looks like a "handy" box or what we used to call a "gem" box that was spray painted black with some kind of home made strap to secure it to the wall. But then again maybe not.

Ken can you give us some more info on this box? Just out of curiosity?