State v. Juarez’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably State v. Rosengren (2000), McCambridge v. State (1989)
35 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 Campbell v. Superior Court · McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. · People v. Gursey · Montano v. Superior Court Pima County · Smith v. Cada
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Informing the driver that he may not call his attorney before taking the test misstates the law and violates the driver’s right to counsel under the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution and art. 2, section 24 of the Arizona Constitution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A defendant shall be entitled to be represented by counsel in any criminal proceeding.... The right to be represented shall include the right to consult in private with an attorney, or the attorney's agent, as soon as feasible after a defendant is taken into custody, at reasonable times thereafter, and sufficiently in advance of a proceeding to allow adequate preparation therefor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Right to be Represented by Counsel. A defendant shall be entitled to be represented by counsel in any criminal proceeding, except in those petty offenses such as traffic violations where there is no prospect of imprisonment or confinement after a judgment of guilty. The right to be represented shall include the right to consult in private with an attorney, or the attorney’s agent, as soon as feasible after a defendant is taken into custody, at reasonable times thereafter, and sufficiently in advance of a proceeding to allow adequate preparation therefor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Weiss
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.