Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 Ariz. 564 - State v. Richey

State v. Richey’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections (1997), Trantor v. Fredrikson (1994)

34 state decisions

2201989199020002010decided

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 Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner · Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners · Auman v. Auman · Berry v. Arizona State Land Department · McKesson Chemical Co. v. Van Waters & Rogers

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

  1. “Because [A.R.S. § 12-341.01(0)] specifically requires a higher burden — “clear and convincing evidence” — before a trial court can determine that a claim or defense constitutes harassment, is groundless and not made in good faith, the trial court must make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable a party required to pay attorneys’ fees to seek appellate review____ We also note, by way of comparison, that A.R.S. § 12-350 requires the trial court to “set forth the specific reasons” for a fee award made pursuant to § 12-349, which permits fee awards when claims are brought “without substantial justification” or “primarily for delay or harassment.” ... Because the contexts in which § 12-341.01(0) applies may often overlap those in which § 12-349 applies, we hold that requiring a trial court to set forth specific findings in the former as well as in the latter contexts is appropriate.”
    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.