18 Ariz. App. 593 - State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

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

1. ““The dividing line between regarding receiving stolen property as a misdemeanor or as a felony was changed from $50 or more to $100 or more in 1969. See A. R.S. § 13-621. The sale of hubcaps to appellant occurred in 1967, but appellant contends that the new limit should apply to him. A.R.S. § 1-244 provides ‘No statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein.’ There was testimony that appellant paid $50 and $88 for stolen hubcaps. The trial court correctly •instructed the jury that they were to determine whether the crime, if committed, was a felony or misdemeanor using the $50 limit. * * * ” State v. Hall, 18 Ariz.App. 593, 595 , 504 P.2d 534, 536 (1973). See also, Merchants Despatch Trans. Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 20 Ariz.App. 276 , 512 P.2d 39 (1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Williams