State v. Briggs’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Christensen (1981), State v. Mott (1997)
51 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · State v. Schantz · State v. Kevil · State v. Hernandez · State v. Kellington
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It appears from the record that Dr. Bendheim is a psychiatrist. The essence of Dr. Bendheim’s opinion relates to the question of the specific intent element of murder. ‘The issue of criminal responsibility in Arizona has traditionally been a fact question for the jury.’ State v. Ganster, 102 Ariz. 490 , 433 P.2d 620 (1967). Arizona does not permit psychiatric evidence of a mental disease or defect negativing a state of mind. State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 (1965). Since Dr. Bendheim could not qualify as an expert in the area of specific intent, it follows that hearsay testimony relating to the basis for the formulation of his opinion in that area was inadmissible. The trial court correctly excluded the testimony.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he mere fact that an objection is not lodged simultaneously with the offer of the exhibit into evidence is not determinative of the question of waiver. The essential question is whether or not the objectionable matter is brought to the attention of the trial court in a manner sufficient to advise the court that the error was not waived, [citation omitted]. A properly made motion in limine will preserve appellant’s objection on appeal without need for further objection if it contains specific grounds for the objection. [citations omitted].” State v. Briggs, 112 Ariz. 379, 382 , 542 P.2d 804, 807 (1975).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Coleman · State v. Watkins““ * * * A properly made motion in limine will preserve appellant’s objection on appeal without need for further objection if it contains specific grounds for the objection, (citations omitted) We find that the motion in limine was properly made and specific in its grounds for objection.” State v. Briggs, Ariz., 542 P.2d 804, 1975 .”
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.