State v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation (1981), State v. Wagstaff (1990)
2 federal appellate · 76 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 Burdeau v. McDowell · State v. Phillips · State v. Maberry · State Ex Rel. Purcell v. Superior Court · Robinson v. Lintz
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first issue raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. As to that issue, the appellant urges we ignore the longstanding decision of the United States Supreme Court in Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921). That decision held illegally seized evidence is admissible when seized by a non-government agent who is not acting in concert with police. This type of activity and its fruits are not within the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We see no reason why this well-established rule of law should be disturbed. The State should not be condemned for the actions of a private individual and the courts do not, by using this evidence, condone the actions of the individual. [ 110 Ariz. at 211-212 , 516 P.2d at 1223-24 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. White“"Unlike the provisions of the Narcotic Drug Act, there is nothing in the statutes in question which would suggest that the Legislature intended to deprive a defendant of the special statutory credits provided in the foregoing sections." 110 Ariz. at 213, 516 P.2d at 1225 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Deddens“Every other prisoner who has served one-third of the minimum sentence, computed without any time deductions credited, if he has served more than one calendar year, shali be given an opportunity to appear before the board and apply for release upon parole.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Walden
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.