Hernandez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. “[excluding evidence offered solely to impeach a party’s credibility does not encourage complete candor. To the contrary, that approach fails to hold parties accountable for setting forth one version of the facts to obtain a settlement and describing another version at trial. Claimants should present their claims tmthjully. Lawyers should not lie on behalf of clients in presenting a claim.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORT · Backus v. State

2. “Persons who have claims against a public entity or a public employee shall file claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the public entity or public employee as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues. The claim shall contain facts sufficient to permit the public entity or public employee to understand the basis upon which liability is claimed. The claim shall also contain a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount. Any claim which is not filed within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues is barred and no action may be maintained thereon.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Backus v. State

3. “Thus, impeachment evidence must be relevant under Rules 401 and 402, and unfair prejudice must not substantially outweigh its probative value.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORT