Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 Ariz. 185 - State v. Lycett

State v. Lycett’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
September 2011
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably State v. White (1991), State v. Martin (1984)

31 state decisions

1601982199020002010decided

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 Morissette v. United States · Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. · United States v. James · Schecter v. Killingsworth · State v. Ferrari

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

  1. “... A.R.S. § 44-1731 does not begin to encroach on any constitutionally protected activities. In this case, the speech and conduct proscribed by § 44-1731 which encourages others to join a pyramid scheme is what is specifically made illegal under the terms of the statute, and does not amount to constitutionally protected speech: “(I)t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 , 69 S.Ct. 684, 691 , 93 L.Ed. 834, 843-44 (1949).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To ask the jurors to consider highly prejudicial statements of co-conspirators only if they first find the existence of the conspiracy and the defendant’s participation in it, is to present the jury with too difficult a task. In cases where the conspiracy is charged, it creates the absurdity of asking the jury in effect to decide the issue of guilt before it may consider evidence which is probative of guilt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]f a statute defining an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state that is sufficient for commission of the offense, no culpable mental state is required for the commission of such offense, and the offense is one of strict liability unless the proscribed conduct necessarily involves a culpable mental state.”
    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.