State v. Bedoni’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2014
15 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 Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA · State v. Edwards · State v. Dixon · State v. Carroll · State v. Sheaves
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n our opinion, there is no question that a traffic citation constitutes `any paper' and is within the broad statutory definition of a written instrument.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The false signature changes the effect of the acknowledgement of receipt and promise to appear. Obviously such ac-knowledgement and promise to appear by a fictitious person is meaningless. It deceives the officer and the court system, not to mention risking trouble for some unknown person named “John Be-gay.” It conceals the true identity of the perpetrator of the alleged crime and seeks to obtain the release, without incarceration, of someone not entitled to release. In our opinion, all of these acts could be found by a jury to constitute an “intent to defraud.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stahosky
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.