State v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 25 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Normally, a common pocket knife is not considered inherently dangerous, (citations omitted) However, depending on the size and design of the blade, we believe a jury could find a pocket knife inherently dangerous. Thus, in the majority of cases involving this type of knife, it remains a jury question as to whether the pocket knife in an assault falls within the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-249(A) or (B). (citation omitted) Except in cases involving weapons which are inherently dangerous as a matter of law, the jury must find the weapon inherently dangerous before a defendant may be sentenced pursuant to subsection B.” State v. Gordon, supra, 120 Ariz. at 176 , 584 P.2d at 1167 .”

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

2. “By adding the words “or deadly weapon” after “armed with a gun” in subsection B, we believe the rule of “ejusdem-generis ” has application here, [citations omitted.] The words “ejusdem generis” literally translated means [sic] of the same kind, class or nature. Such rules apply only to persons or things of the same nature, kind or class as preceding specific enumerations. [citations omitted.] In applying these principles in construing A.R.S. § 13 — 249, subsec. B, as amended, we are of the opinion that the legislature intended that one armed with a deadly weapon of the type like a gun (ones that are inherently dangerous), is subject to increased punishment.”

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

3. ““The issue of whether the pocket knife was inherently dangerous was not presented to the jury. The jury’s verdict simply read ‘We, the jury, * * * do find the defendant Robert Allen Gordon guilty of the crime of Assault With a Deadly Weapon, to wit: a knife.’ Since the jury did not make a factual determination that the pocket knife was inherently dangerous, it was error to sentence the appellant under the enhanced punishment provision of A.R.S. § 13-249(B).” State v. Gordon, supra, 120 Ariz. at 176 , 584 P.2d at 1167 .”

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