Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 Ariz. 142 - State v. Carriger

State v. Carriger’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

166
cited by 166 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 118 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 166 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Walton v. Arizona (1990), Lewis v. Jeffers (1990)

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 118 state decisions

66019841990200020102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Davis v. Alaska · Beck v. Alabama · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba

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

  1. “[T]he state is not relying on the same facts to prove an element of robbery and the aggravating circumstance. To prove robbery, the state must show a taking of property from the victim, see A.R.S. § 13-1902(A); to prove pecuniary gain, the state must show the actor’s motivation was the expectation of pecuniary gain, see A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(5). Proving a taking in a robbery does not necessarily prove the motivation for a murder, and the state cannot be said to be using one fact to prove two different items.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]herefore, although we find Carriger's claims would be barred under state law, we address the merits of his claims that we have not addressed before.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[f]ailure to comply ... will result in a finding that petitioner waived his right to present a Rule 32 petition.”
    3 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.