25 Ariz. App. 220 - State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Rule 16.1 General provisions a. Scope of Rule. This rule shall govern the procedure to be followed in cases in the Superior Court between arraignment and trial unless specifically provided by another rule. Rules 16.1 and 16.2 shall apply to criminal proceedings in all courts. b. Making of Motions Before Trial. All motions shall be made no later than 20 days prior to the date set for trial. Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time. An omnibus hearing will be held only if affirmatively requested in writing by either or both parties within 30 days of the date of arraignment in the Superior Court. The omnibus hearing shall be set at the earliest convenient date following the filing of the request but no later than 20 days prior to the trial date, c. Effect of Failure to Make Motions in Timely Manner. Any motion, defense, objection, or request not timely raised under Rule 16.1(b) shall be precluded, unless the basis therefor was not then known, and by the exercise of reasonable diligence could not then have been known, and the party raises it promptly upon learning of it. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Neese

2. ““For the foregoing reasons we hold that a defendant must move to dismiss no later than 20 days prior to trial when the issue is ripe for determination or be deemed to have waived any objection .... Accordingly, it could be argued that if the speedy trial limits have not yet been violated 20 days prior to trial, they need not be raised at that time. However, upon actual violation of the speedy trial limits, we feel that the defendant should make a prompt objection to the violation or be considered to have waived that objection.” (Emphasis added) 25 Ariz.App. at 225 , 542 P.2d 413 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thurman

3. ““[T]he comments to Rule 16 state that the intent of the new rule is to overrule the holding of State v. Kananen, 97 Ariz. 233 , 399 P.2d 426 (1965), in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that a defendant was not precluded by his failure to make a pretrial suppression motion from objecting to the admission of illegally obtained evidence at trial. Rule 16 is thus applicable to constitutional objections.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Neese