2 Ariz. App. 242 - State v. Sheppard’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2010
18 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 1 Ariz. App. 67 - State v. Mileham · State v. Murphy · Sheridan v. Superior Court · Harrison v. Shute · State v. Sparks
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although the information is filed late it is not rendered void, but only subject to dismissal upon motion duly made unless good cause to the contrary is shown by affidavit. Sheridan v. Superior Court, 91 Ariz. 211 , 370 P.2d 949 (1962). Defendant made no move to dismiss the proceedings but on the contrary withdrew a plea of not guilty theretofore made and entered a plea of guilty. A defendant may effectively waive the requirements of these rules and, in fact, may find it to his advantage to do so. Defendant’s plea of guilty to the information, entered upon the advice of competent counsel, was a waiver of the irregularity of the day late filing since we have already determined such defect is non-jurisdictional.” State v. Sheppard, 2 Ariz.App. 242, 244 , 407 P.2d 783, 785 (1965).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dunbar“«* * * [j]n view of the fact that he [defendant] pleaded guilty and did not question the sufficiency of the information by demur or otherwise * * * [b]y his plea of guilty he waived all irregularities in the proceedings up to that time and also any error in the information that did not go to the extent of rendering it absolutely void.” State v. Sparks, 97 Ariz. 358, 360 , 400 P.2d 586, 588 (1965).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dunbar
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.