State v. Cantua-Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2020
20 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 State v. Just · State v. Gunter
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“deals with the situations in which the actual result differs from the result designed or contemplated only in that a different person or property was injured or affected, or in that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or extensive than that which actually occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Subsection (B)(1) of Arizona’s transferred intent statute applies where the actual result of the appellant’s conduct differs from that intended “only in the respect that a different person ... is injured.” The appellant intended an assault on the mother, and an assault on the baby resulted. Had he succeeded in striking the baby’s mother, the injury which resulted would most likely be a bruise or laceration. The injury actually suffered by the baby — the unintended victim — was a facial bruise which persisted for one week. The injury was the same; the only difference was the classification of the offense as a felony instead of a misdemeanor and the range of imposable punishment. We believe the transferred intent instruction was properly given.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If intentionally causing a particular result is an element of an offense, and the actual result is not within the intention or contemplation of the person, that element is established if: The actual result differs from that intended or contemplated only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm intended or contemplated would have been more serious or extensive than that caused[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lopez
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.