State v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 1994 · most notably State v. Gordon (1989), State v. Ross (1994)
1 federal appellate · 35 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 Gerstein v. Pugh · United States v. Watson · United States v. Santana · 16 Cal. 3d 539 - People v. Steger · State v. Tinghitella
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is apparent that the elimination of the evidence supporting the elements of first degree murder does not leave sufficient evidence to support the armed robbery charge. Although the first five elements of robbery are supported by the remaining facts, the sixth element ‘by means of force or fear’ is not supported. This evidence is necessary to support the first two elements of the murder charge: the unlawful killing of a human being. Under the peculiar facts of our instant case, the taxicab driver was shot in the head from behind, apparently with no knowledge of what was about to take place. This shooting was the only force available to support the subsequent acts which might otherwise be characterized as robbery. * * * Accordingly, the robbery conviction and sentence are set aside.” State v. Ferguson, 119 Ariz. 55, 61 , 579 P.2d 559, 565 (1978).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Woods · State v. Rumsey““An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may sentences be other than concurrent. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other, to the extent the constitution of the United States or of this state require.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thurman · State v. Davis““Right of officer to break into building “An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or when authorized to make such arrest for a felony without a warrant, as provided in § 13-1403, may break open a door or window of any building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if the officer is refused admittance after he has announced his authority and purpose.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis
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.