Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 Ariz. 28 - State v. Rodriguez

State v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
4
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably State v. McDaniel (1983), State v. Lee (1984)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 68 state decisions

38019801990200020102020decided

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 Faretta v. California · Davis v. Alaska · Fay v. Noia · Santoni v. United States · Henry v. State of Mississippi

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

  1. ““First, the attorney acts on behalf of his client____ The attorney, moreover, is the expert — not the client. Short of outright incompetence, the attorney’s actions must be considered as being in the best interests of his client. “Second, ... a rule requiring an attorney to consult with his client before the client’s rights may be waived would unduly interfere with trials. Not only would it hamper the attorney, it might force the trial judge to interrupt the proceedings whenever a waiver might be occurring in order to protect the record on appeal____ [Sjuch a procedure would distract and confuse a jury [and could] slow a trial to a snail’s pace____””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “is nothing more than a motion to suppress specifically authorized by Rule 16, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.” State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 28, 30 , 612 P.2d 484, 486 (1980). 3 . The state argues on appeal that its”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he disposition of a child in the juvenile court may not be used against the child in any case or proceeding in any court other than a juvenile court....”
    2 later decisions 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.