McBeth v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 174 W. Va. 793 - State v. Manns (1985), L. H. v. Jamieson (1981)
2 federal appellate · 35 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 O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima · Burrows v. State · 72 Wash. 2d 904 - State v. Kramer · 348 F. Supp. 764 - Miller v. Quatsoe
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the purpose of the juvenile provisions in Arizona concerns the treatment, not the capacity of the offender”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. L. H., M. D., E. M., R. C., and T. D., by Their Attorneys and Next Friends John G. Balentine and Terry D. Oehler, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. William S. Jamieson, Jr., Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, and Bruce E. Babbitt, Governor of the State of Arizona, Individually and in Their Official Capacities · L. H. v. William S. Jamieson, Jr.“The court may transfer the action for criminal prosecution to the appropriate court having jurisdiction of the offense if the court finds probable cause [that the juvenile committed the alleged offenses] and reasonable grounds to believe that: (1) The child is not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation as a delinquent child through available facilities; and (2) The child is not commitable [sic] to an institution for mentally deficient, mentally defective or mentally ill persons; and (3) The safety or interest of the public requires that the child be transferred for criminal prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he purpose of the Arizona juvenile law is not to attempt to establish an arbitrary age below which the child is presumed to be ignorant of the consequences of his acts, but rather to provide a special method of treatment for minors under the age of eighteen who have violated the criminal law, and, even with such children, leaving the application of the juvenile or criminal code to the discretion of the trial court.”
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.