In Re Shane B.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Seisinger v. Siebel (2009), Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (2000)
2 federal appellate · 39 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 Kent v. United States · Breed v. Jones · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · State v. McCuin · State v. Sutherland
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“additional information might have been available ... [and Garcia] may have a viable claim of self-defense[J ... that is ultimately a matter to be resolved by the trier of fact at the trial of this case.” 2 . In Shane B., our supreme court added, "[n]evertheless, ... 'it is generally agreed that a substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights while a procedural one prescribes the method of enforcing such rights or obtaining redress.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We conclude, as a matter of law, that petitioner’s substantive interests have not been divested by application of the statute to him. Any transfer of petitioner to adult court or consequent forfeiture of juvenile system privileges depends solely on future, as yet non-existent, criminal activity, and we decline to speculate on future criminal activity. The statute does not affect petitioner’s present offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Beasley“Retroactive application of the statute in the instant case does not “change[] the punishment, [or] inflict [a] greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.” State v. Noble, 171 Ariz. 171, 173 , 829 P.2d 1217, 1219 (1992) (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 , 390, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gum
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.