Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 Ariz. 442 - Coy v. Fields

Coy v. Fields’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
4
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Aragon v. Wilkinson (2004), Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state (2015)

40 state decisions

220200120102020decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · Santobello v. New York · Ricketts v. Adamson · State v. Chapple · United States v. Bunner

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

  1. “We, too, hold the state accountable for knowing Arizona law when it negotiates, drafts, and enters into plea agreements. We agree with the court in Patience that the state bears the risk when, as here, a sentencing or probation provision in one of its plea agreements proves to be illegal and unenforceable. Of course, had there been an allegation and finding below that [Coy] had negotiated or entered into the plea agreement in bad faith, never intending to comply with the terms of the agreement or knowing that a probationary term of more than three years was impossible, the state’s withdrawal from the plea would have been appropriate. See [State v.] Taylor[, 196 Ariz. 549 , 2 P.3d 108 (Ariz. App. 1999)] (defendants must deal in good faith before they can attempt to claim benefits of contract law in plea agreement disputes). Because there was no valid ground on which the state was entitled to withdraw from the plea agreement, the respondent judge abused his discretion in setting the plea agreement aside.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Plea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract interpretation.”
    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.