13 Ariz. App. 357 - State v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Upon a trial for having, with an intent to cheat or defraud another designedly, by any false pretense, obtained the signature of any person, to a written instrument, or having obtained from any person any money, personal property, or valuable thing, the defendant shall not be convicted if the false pretense shall have been expressed in language, unaccompanied by a false token or writing, unless ... the pretense be proved by the testimony of two witnesses, or that of one witness and corroborating circumstances ....”

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

2. ““This court rejects appellant’s argument and believes that the consent of one of the parties to the conversation is sufficient to allow the taping of the conversation. [Citations omitted.] Katz is distinguishable in that it involved eavesdropping on a conversation without the consent of either party. [Citations omitted.]” 476 P.2d at 880 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 18 Ariz. App. 410 - State v. Wilder