State v. Camargo’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Tinnin v. State (1981), Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state (2015)
28 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
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Hines v. Davidowitz · United States v. Harris · State Ex Rel. Flournoy v. Wren
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Camargo , the trial judge ordered as conditions of probation that the defendant be turned over to USINS officials for deportation proceedings and that he remain outside the United States during the probation period. The Arizona Supreme Court recognized that the federal government has exclusive power over matters dealing with the entry and deportation of aliens. It therefore found that the trial judge did not have jurisdiction to order that the defendant be deported or that he remain outside the United States during the term of his probation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Patel““The fact that there was a delay of approximately 72 hours between the time the drugs were seen by the confidential informant to be in Espinoza’s possession and the time that the warrant was issued does not invalidate the warrant. The drugs were not on the person of Espinoza but in his home, unlike State v. Hutton, 110 Ariz. 339 , 519 P.2d 38 (1974), and 72 hours is a period of time for which it is reasonable to believe that the contraband would still be present in the home.” Id. at 52, 537 P.2d at 922 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tinnin v. State
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.