12 Ariz. App. 446 - State v. Lenahan’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Zickefoose v. State (1979), State v. Myers (1977)
2 federal appellate · 42 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 Chapman v. State of California · Katz v. United States · Chimel v. California · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Harrington v. California
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is probable cause that defendant caused the offense charged in the information State v. Pima County Superior Court, 103 Ariz. 369 , 442 P.2d 113 (1968); State v. Martin, 5 Ariz. App. 524 , 428 P.2d 699 (1967). We do not believe that defendant can point to any defect in a preliminary hearing which is curable at this point in the proceeding. This court has held that certain standards of case presentation apply to a preliminary hearing. However, short of a jurisdictional defect in the subject matter ... we are compelled to hold that, generally speaking, errors at a preliminary hearing must be remedied prior to trial. State v. Cuzick, 5 Ariz. App. 498 , 428 P.2d 443 (1967). Once trial is over and properly completed, a ‘nonju-risdictional’ error at a preliminary hearing is lost.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Neese“The Atizona rule as to attempted crimes is clear. An attempt must be proven as to both the overt act and the intent. And the intent must be proven by evidence of facts other than those of the overt act. Elfbrandt v. Russell, 97 Ariz, 140, 397 P.2d 944 (1964). Just what other facts there might be is the question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.