State v. Stuard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The prosecution made an adequate showing of the witness’s availability to justify the court in permitting the testimony to be read from the transcript. At the preliminary hearing defendant did conduct a very thorough cross-examination of the witness. We upheld the introduction of testimony from the preliminary hearing transcript under similar circumstances in State v. Head, 91 Ariz. 246 , 371 P.2d 599 * * * ” State v. Stuard, 104 Ariz. 305, 306 , 452 P.2d 98, 99 (1969). See also State v. Reynolds, 7 Ariz.App. 48 , 436 P.2d 142 (1968); cf. State v. Cumbo, 9 Ariz.App. 253 , 451 P.2d 333 (1969).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dixon

2. ““B. When a witness has been examined as provided in Rule 23 and his testimony .taken as provided in Rule 28, such testimony may be admitted in evidence upon the trial of the defendant for the offense for which he is held, either on behalf of the state or the defendant, if for any reason the testimony of the witness cannot be obtained at the trial and the court is satisfied that the inability to procure such testimony is not due to the fault of the party offering it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lippi