Francisco v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 1999 · most notably United States v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty. (1985), Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. (1989)
44 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 25 U.S.C. § 1322 · 25 U.S.C. § 1324
Relies on Williams v. Lee · McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona · United States v. Kagama · Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Arizona has no authority to extend the application of its laws to an Indian reservation.’ By this language we did not mean to create a ‘force-field’ around Indian reservations through which no Arizona civil process could pass ‘regardless of the cause of action or fairness of the forum.... ’ We merely held that a state officer could not officially serve process on an Indian reservation just as that state officer could not officially serve process in California or New Mexico.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bradley v. Deloria““all right and title ... to all lands lying within [the state’s] boundaries owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes ... [and] until the title of such Indian or Indian tribes shall have been extinguished, the same shall be, and remain, subject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.” Ariz. Const. Art. 20, § 4.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In holding that there was no personal jurisdiction over the petitioner due to an invalid service of process, we think it appropriate to point out that the trial court did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction. This has been conceded by the petitioner and is not here an issue.” (Emphasis added) 113 Ariz. at 428, n. 1 , 556 P.2d at 2, n. 1 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nenna v. Moreno
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.