State v. Baumann’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably State v. Clark (1980), State v. McDaniel (1983)
85 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 Patterson v. New York · Alford v. United States · Houltin v. United States · Brookhart v. Janis · Smith v. Illinois
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The contention that a grand jury must consider all exculpatory evidence misreads the grand jury’s primary function of determining whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the individual being investigated was the one who committed it. (citations omitted) Any more would put grand juries in the business of holding minitrials, (citations omitted) 610 P.2d at 42 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Regulation of transactions in securities, commonly known as "blue sky laws," are designed to protect the public from fraud and deceit arising in those transactions. [Because] much of the public lacks the knowledge and sophistication of those who trade regularly in the securities marketplace, blue sky laws act as a buffer between purveyors of worthless securities and that segment of the public which can ill afford to fall victim to fraudulent investment schemes. In Jackson v. Robertson, 90 Ariz. 405, 409-10 , 368 P.2d 645, 648 (1962), we said: It is the capacity for harm and danger to the public as well as accomplished fraudulent transactions to which the Securities Act is directed. The Act is designed to be prophylactic if possible, remedial only if necessary. Not only is fraud in the sale of a security a violation of A.R.S. § 44-1991, but the statutes requiring registration of securities and dealers are designed to make the possibility of fraud even more remote. See A.R.S. §§ 44-1841 and 44-1842. Unless a particular security or transaction falls within one of a few limited exemptions, all securities must be registered before they can be offered for sale and all dealers in securities must register with the Corporation Commission. Because of the vital public policy underlying the registration requirement, there must be strict compliance with all the requirements of the exemption statute. State v. Goodman, 110 Ariz. 524 , 521 P.2d 611 (1974). The exemptions exist where the natu”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tober“The duty of a grand jury is to decide whether probable cause exists and that probable cause determination may only be challenged by a motion alleging the defendant was denied a substantial procedural right or that an insufficient number of grand jurors concurred in the indictment, 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 12.9. ... Absent a showing of prejudice in these grand jury proceedings, there can be no reversal of error. (Citations omitted).”
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.