State v. Jamison’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably State v. Morales (1978), 24 Ariz. App. 472 - State v. Salazar (1975)
30 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 United States v. Harvey · State v. Duncan · 20 Ariz. App. 65 - State v. Fimbres
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There are two types of intent in criminal law, general and specific. In crimes of general intent, the party is presumed to have the requisite criminal intent from the commission of the crime itself. Specific intent, however, is an additional mental element to certain crimes, and criminal statutes that use the words ‘wil-fully’ or ‘intentionally’ will usually require a specified intent as, for example, assault with intent to commit murder which requires a specific intent on the part of the defendant to commit a murder, in addition to a general intent to commit an assault. “The difference between general and specific intent is important in a case like the one before the court because of the different burden placed on both the State and the defense. In general intent cases, once the commission of the crime has been shown, the absence of general intent may be shown by the defendant, but this is the defendant’s burden and voluntary intoxication will not negate general intent. “On the other hand, in crimes of specific intent, this specific intent must be proved by the State and voluntary intoxication may be a defense.” 110 Ariz. at 248 , 517 P.2d at 1244 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morales · State v. Mikels““ * * * wilfully resists, delays or obstructs a public officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his office * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mikels“****** “(7) When the person committing the offense knows or has reason to know that the victim is a peace officer. . ..””
1 later decision 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.