State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Donald (2000), State v. Prentiss (1989)
57 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 3 Cal. 3d 89 - People v. Tenorio · 7 Cal. 3d 248 - People v. Navarro · 11 Cal. 3d 59 - People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho) · 58 Cal. 2d 645 - People v. Sidener · 5 Cal. 3d 119 - Esteybar v. Municipal Court
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The powers of the government of the State of Arizona shall be divided into three separate departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; and, except as provided in this Constitution, such departments shall be separate and distinct, and no one of such departments shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“An entire statute need not and should not be declared unconstitutional if the constitutional portion can be separated____ If an unconstitutional provision of a statute can be eliminated, leaving a complete statute, whose meaning and effect is not repugnant to the original law, the remainder of the act will stand____ If part of an act is unconstitutional, but by eliminating the unconstitutional portion the balance of the act is workable, only that part which is objectionable will be eliminated and the balance will be left intact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hile it is within the sole power of the legislature to determine what acts constitute crime and to prescribe punishment for those acts, it cannot give the prosecuting attorney the authority, after a conviction, to decide what the punishment shall be. That is a judicial function.”
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.