2 Ariz. App. 215 - Long v. Mertz’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (1977), Chamberlain v. Mathis (1986)
2 federal appellate · 28 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 Barr v. Matteo · Spalding v. Vilas · Gregoire v. Biddle · Montgomery v. Philadelphia · 48 Cal. 2d 577 - Hardy v. Vial
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although the statutes do not expressly give [defendant] the duty or authority to make statements such as this, his job requires the making of such a finding, and to require him to be silent when asked his reason for his decision would be to encourage undercover, star-chamber, secret sessions of executive heads, who, for fear of civil responsibility in carrying out their duties, must remain mute when asked for an explanation of the reasons for their acts. To do so would be unrealistic and tend to create disrespect for public officials.” 2 Ariz.App. at 222 , 407 P.2d at 411 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . it is impossible to know whether the claim [for defamation] is well founded until the case has been tried, and ... to submit all officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties.” 2 Ariz.App. at 220 , 407 P.2d at 409 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . the law does not specifically impose upon the public officer the duty or authority to make the statement, but because of the nature of his office and/or the interest of the public to be informed on the subject of the communication, the officer will not be liable unless his actions in making the statement were actuated by malice in fact or were not made in good faith.” 2 Ariz.App. at 220 , 407 P.2d at 409 .”
2 later decisions 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.