Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 Ariz. 247 - State v. Estrada

State v. Estrada’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 115 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Gomez (2006), State v. Thues (2002)

2 federal appellate · 115 state decisions

590200120102020decided

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 Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission · State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell · Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. · Calik v. Kongable · Jett v. City of Tucson

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

  1. “A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation. The court shall suspend the sentence and place the person on probation. C. Personal possession or use of a controlled substance pursuant to this section shall not include possession for sale, production, manufacturing or transportation for sale of any controlled substance.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “An absurd result is one 'so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Proposition 200’s intent provisions, which explicitly call for treatment rather than incarceration of first time drug offenders in order to reduce drug use and preserve prison space for more dangerous criminals, make it clear that the electorate, acting in the role of the legislature, did not intend to incarcerate for the lesser offense and yet mandate probation for the more serious.”
    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.