State v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2009
23 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 · United States v. Marion · United States v. Josef Perez · Cupp v. Naughten · State v. Trotter
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Legal necessity for the discharge of the jury exists when at the expiration of such time as the court might deem proper, it satisfactorily appears that there is no reasonable probability that the jury can agree, [cite omitted] State v. Marks, 113 Ariz. 71, 73 , 546 P.2d 807, 809 (1976); 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 22.4(b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Knapp
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.