23 Ariz. App. 225 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably State v. Stotts (1985), Anaya v. State (1980)
34 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Escoe v. Zerbst · Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · 20 Ariz. App. 283 - State v. Settle
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Moreover, we do recognize the possibility that the comment to Rule 32.1(d) mandating review of probation revocation through Rule 32 post-conviction proceedings is an inadvertent comment holdover which should have been omitted when the appeal provisions of the originally proposed Rule 35.10 were dropped. However, this is mere speculation on our part. What is not speculation on our part, is the fact that, regardless of the original intent, the appellant seeking review of probation revocation proceedings is now faced with a confusing situation where he is expressly told that he has the right to appeal, but then through the comments to the rules is told that he has no such right. Under these circumstances it is our opinion that both remedies should remain alternatively available to him. ( “It is anticipated that the normal choice for review would be by appeal pursuant to Rule 31. * * *.” State v. Brown, 23 Ariz.App. 225 , 532 P.2d 167, 170 (1975).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robbins · State v. Brown““ ‘An additional comment is warranted with respect to the rights to present witnesses and to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses . . .. While in some cases there is simply no adequate alternative to live testimony, we emphasize that we did not in Morrissey intend to prohibit use where appropriate of the conventional substitutes for live testimo ny . . ..' 411 U.S. at 782, n. 5 , 93 S.Ct. at 1760 .” 23 Ariz.App. 225 at 231 , 532 P.2d 167 at 173 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * Probationers who wish to challenge their revocation and the resulting sentence will have to file a petition under Rule 32.1(c) and (d) rather than appealing from the sentence imposed as under current practice. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
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.