19 Ariz. App. 32 - State v. Ballinger’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Ex Parte Lewis (2007), State v. Hadd (1980)
38 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 Aguilar v. Texas · Jones v. United States · United States v. Jorn · United States v. Harris · Downum v. United States
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Constructive possession is generally applied to those circumstances where the drug is not found on the person of the defendant nor in his presence, but is found in a place under his dominion and control and under circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant had actual knowledge of the existence of the narcotics. Exclusive control of the place in which the narcotics are found is not necessary.” State v. Villavicencio, 108 Ariz. 518, 520 , 502 P.2d 1337, 1339 (1972)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Donovan““There is a growing body of authority in support of the proposition that deliberate and intentional misconduct of a prosecutor which compels the accused to move for a mistrial so violates the protective policy of the constitutional guarantee against being twice placed in jeopardy that retrial is barred.” (Emphasis added, citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A.R.S. § 13-1592 does not, however, require a finding by the jury in every case in which a plea of double jeopardy is interjected. If the previous prosecution could not constitute double jeopardy as a matter of law, the trial court may so rule without presenting the plea to the trier of fact.” 95 Ariz. at 85 , 386 P.2d at 852 .”
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.