25 Ariz. App. 1 - State v. Bateman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... consenting sexual activity indulged in in private is one of the `fundamental' rights inherent in the marriage relationship and as such constitutionally protected from government regulation in the absence of a `compelling state interest' under the rationale of Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. We have looked in vain for a `compelling state interest' in regulating consenting sexual activity between marrieds although some `rationale' bases present themselves, i.e., upholding human dignity, discouragement of `abnormal' sexual behavior, etc. We, therefore, hold that Arizona cannot constitutionally criminalize consenting sexual behavior carried on by a married couple in private." 540 P.2d at 736 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 25 Ariz. App. 267 - State v. Callaway

2. ““It appear [s] to the court that the Arizona statutes on sodomy and lewdness violate the Arizona and U. S. Constitutions because they could violate the right to privacy, and further that this court’s interpretation of the statutes to permit the defense of consent without the benefit of legislative or appellate court guidance was improper ....””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bateman v. Arizona

3. “"... whether the right of marrieds to conduct such sexual activities in private is a `fundamental' right under Griswold [ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965)] and thus cloaked with constitutional protection against state interference." 540 P.2d at 735 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 25 Ariz. App. 267 - State v. Callaway