Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 Ariz. App. 463 - State v. Brooks

23 Ariz. App. 463 - State v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

2 district · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Pritchard v. State (1990), Mammo v. State (1983)

2 district · 48 state decisions

2401975198019902000decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2675

Relies on Farrell v. County of Placer · State v. Stone · Santa Rita Mining Co. v. Department of Property Valuation · State v. Stone

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

  1. “Persons having claims on contract or for negligence against the state, which have been disallowed, may on the terms and conditions set forth in this article, bring action thereon against the state and prosecute the action to final judgment.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) to afford an opportunity to the agency to investigate the merits of the claim and seasonably assess its potential for liability, (2) to afford the opportunity to arrive at a settlement of the controversy and thus avoid the litigation between the state and its citizens, and (3) to establish an orderly procedure by which the legislature will be advised of claims in instances where no provision has been made for payment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Numerous settlements of litigation are based not upon the question of liability alone, but upon the amount for which the suit can be settled. Thus, suits of questionable liability are settled because of the potential damages that may be assessed. Conversely, suits of no liability may be settled because the cost of defense may exceed the settlement.”
    2 later decisions 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.