State v. Navarrette’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““§ 13-531.01. Definitions “In this article, unless the context otherwise requires: * * * * * * “2. An item is obscene within the meaning of this article when: (a) The average person, applying contemporary state standards would find that the item, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; and (b) The item depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual activity as that term is described herein; and (e) The item taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bartanen · State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court

2. “Appellant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to show scienter or knowledge on his part that the films were obscene. The word “knowingly” as used in A.R.S. § 13-532A is defined in subparagraph 4 of § 13-531.01 as follows: “ ‘Knowingly’ means having general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of: (a) The character and content of any material described in this article, which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant. * * * ” This definition appears to be in basic accord with principles adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 , 16 S.Ct. 434 , 40 L.Ed. 606 (1896) and adhered to in Hamling v. United State’s, 418 U.S. 87 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tovar