State v. Sweet’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 187 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Hayes v. Continental Insurance (1994), Janson v. Christensen (1991)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 187 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 City of Mesa v. Killingsworth · State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley · State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell · State v. Coconino Cty. Superior Ct., Div. II · Cohen v. State
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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A.R.S. § 1-211(A) gives us the clear direction to honor the intent of the legislature”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“It was, therefore, contrary to law for the trial court to deny the designation of the defendant’s prior offense as either a felony or a misdemeanor pending the outcome of the probationary period. There was, however, no challenge to the judgment of the trial court after its entry. The trial court has subsequently designated the prior offense as a felony after the defendant’s commission of the present offenses. Is this retrospective designation of defendant’s prior conviction as a felony sufficient to invoke the sentence enhancing provisions of A.R.S. § 13-604-01(B)? We think not. The statute, as we have construed it, required that the offense be committed while the person is on probation for a conviction of a felony offense. At the time the offense was committed the defendant was not on probation for a felony offense. The prior offense had not been designated as a felony. The sentence enhancement provisions of A.R.S. § 13-604.-01(B) were improperly applied, and the defendant must be resentenced. 143 Ariz. at 272 , 693 P.2d at 927 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When the penalty for an offense is prescribed by one law and altered by a subsequent law, the penalty of such second law shall not be inflicted for a breach of the law committed before the second took effect, but the offender shall be punished under the law in force when the offense was committed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Winton · State v. Fallon
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.