Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 Ariz. 299 - State v. DeRose

State v. DeRose’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
November 1987
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 26 Ariz. App. 241 - State v. Deddens · 27 Ariz. App. 210 - Kirkendall v. Fisher

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

  1. ““Rule 15.3 Depositions “a. Availability. Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (1) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case and that there is a substantial likelihood that he will not be available at the time of trial; (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; or, (3) A witness shows that he is incarcerated for failure to give satisfactory security that he will appear to testify at trial or hearing.” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Defense counsel makes much of the fact that the witness refused to have the interview tape-recorded and that the prosecutor would not permit the defendant to be present during the interview. We have held that a witness is being uncooperative within the meaning of Rule 15.3 where the witness ‘attaches such conditions to an interview that it makes the situation untenable for defense counsel to discover needed material.’ (citation omitted) We do not consider the witness’s objection to a tape recorder at the interview to be an improper stricture as it does not inhibit defense counsel’s ability to discover needed material. The rule does not provide that the interview may be tape-recorded.” State v. DeRose, supra, 128 Ariz. at 300 , 625 P.2d at 363 .”
    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.