State v. Mayes’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably State v. Myers (1977), State v. Morse (1980)
25 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. King · State v. Bainch · State v. Fields · State v. Sherron
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We had thought that the issue concerning the admission of a prior felony conviction for impeachment purposes was well settled in this jurisdiction. As recently as October of last year in State v. King, 110 Ariz. 36 , 514 P.2d 1032 (1973) the admissibility of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes was upheld with this statement: ‘We reaffirm our previous position that the rule which allows impeachment by prior felony convictions is not constitutionally defective. State v. Reeden, 106 Ariz. 409 , 477 P.2d 240 (1970); State v. Fields, 104 Ariz. 486 , 455 P.2d 964 (1969). 514 P.2d at 1035 . “We see no reason to depart from the generally accepted rule in the great majority of jurisdictions nor does the appellant or the learned author of the majority opinion in the Court of Appeals decision in this case cite any persuasive authority to cause us to change our position.” 518 P.2d at 568-569 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. McDonald“The fact that an officer may be suspicious of an individual is not the test as to whether Miranda warnings must be given prior to ' questioning, nor is the mere presence of a police officer, to be considered a restraint on the suspect’s liberty. The vital point is whether, examining all the circumstances, the defendant was deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner, and the defendant was aware of such restraint. In the latter instance the Miranda warnings are required to be given before the statements of the defendant may be received in evidence against him. 109 Ariz. at 79 , 505 P.2d at 250 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.