21 Ariz. App. 465 - Castillo v. Industrial Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Danielson v. Evans (2001), Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n (1983)
104 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 McKay v. Industrial Commission · Russell v. Industrial Commission · Wammack v. Industrial Commission of Arizona · Talley v. Industrial Commission · Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. Brooks
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]lthough we are not `absolutely bound' by [ Samano ], we consider it `highly persuasive and binding, unless we are convinced that [it is] based upon clearly erroneous principles, or conditions have changed so as to render [it] inapplicable.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““A review of the above-mentioned ‘exceptions’ to the general principle divesting the trial court of jurisdiction in the event of an appeal reveals that in actuality they are not exceptions, but are well-reasoned applications of the rationale which led to the formulation and adoption by the courts of the general principle in the first instance. This rationale is succinctly stated in Whitfield Transportation v. Brooks, supra, as follows: “ ‘The jurisdiction of this court when properly invoked must be protected. It cannot be defeated or usurped to the extent that its decision when rendered be nugatory. 81 Ariz. at 141 , 302 P.2d at 529 .’ “By allowing the trial court to proceed with issues not directly involved in, or the subject matter of the appeal, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is adequately protected, and at the same time the trial court proceedings are not inordinately delayed pending the appellate decision.” 21 Ariz.App. at 468-469 , 520 P.2d at 1145-1146 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Absent a decision by the Arizona Supreme Court compelling a contrary result, a decision by one division of the Court of Appeals is persuasive with the other division.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Danielson v. Evans
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.