Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 Ariz. 310 - State v. Berry

State v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

112
cited by 112 later decisions
9
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

2 district · 110 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably State v. Rodriguez (1998), State v. Jerousek (1979)

2 district · 110 state decisions

3801966197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Malloy v. Hogan · Hurtado v. People of the State of California · City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District · Davis v. Weber · Singh v. State

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““* * * that it is for the jury to determine the truth of the witnesses’ story, and that it is not the function of this court to retry that issue. * * *” 101 Ariz. at 314 , 419 P.2d at 341 .”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““A person who molests a child under the age of fifteen years by fondling, playing with, or touching the private parts of such child or who causes a child under the age of fifteen years to fondle, .play with, or touch the private parts of such person shall be guilty of a felony,”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[F]rom both the word “molest” itself and the general intent of the Legislature as may be grasped from a reading of the statute as a whole, a scienter requirement is apparent. As we have said before, where a penal statute fails to expressly state a necessary element of intent or scienter, it may be implied.... [Therefore, it is certainly possible for a doctor or parent to touch the private parts of a child without “molesting” him by doing so, in which case the statute has not been violated.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.