Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 169 Ariz. 121 - State v. Taylor

State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
3
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably State v. Anderson (2005), State v. Stuard (1993)

50 state decisions

2001991200020102020decided

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 Scharffe v. Perkins · Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co. · McDougall v. North Carolina · State v. Jeffers · State v. Arnett

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

  1. “[B]ecause of the risk of improper use, the trial judge has a special obligation to insure that [the] probative value of the evidence for the purpose offered is sufficiently great in the context of the case to warrant running that risk. The discretion of the trial judge under Rule jOS to exclude otherwise relevant evidence because of the risk of prejudice should find its most frequent application in this area”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent... sexual assault under section 13-1406.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Arizona courts have long held that a murder defendant who defends on the basis of justification should be permitted to introduce evidence of specific acts of violence by the deceased if the defendant either observed the acts himself or was informed of the acts before the homicide.”
    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.