State v. Espinosa’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably State v. Freitas (1979), State v. Kevil (1974)
54 state decisions
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 State v. Ballesteros · City of Phoenix v. Brown · In Re Lewkowitz · State v. Taylor · State v. Gastelum
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Every Act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title...."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The appellant next contends that it was error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that an offer to sell a narcotic drug was a violation of A.R.S. § 36-1002.-02. At most, the appellant claims, he is guilty of an attempt to violate A.R.S. § 36-1002.02. There was evidence admitted at the trial upon which the jury could have found that not only had the appellant offered to sell heroin, but had in fact actually sold the substance to another for a price. A.R.S. § 13-108 defining attempt to commit a crime and the cases cited to us under that section are inapplicable to the situation at bar since the statute involved here makes it a specific crime to offer to sell narcotic drugs. The trial judge correctly informed the jury that there can be no crime unless there is present a union of an act and a criminal intent. There was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have found that the appellant had offered to sell narcotic drugs in violation of A.R.S. § 36-1002.02 and that he possessed the requisite criminal intent at the time the offer was made.” State v. Espinosa, 101 Ariz. 474, 476-477 , 421 P.2d 322, 324-325 (1966).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Enriquez“It is the sale of any amount of [dangerous drugs] which is prohibited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cheramie
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.