State of Arizona v. State of California’s Empirical Analysis
292 U.S. 341 · 1934
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 12 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably James v. Dravo Contracting Co. (1937), State of Arizona v. State of California (1963)
31 federal appellate · 12 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Terrace v. Thompson · State of Arizona v. State of California · Cook v. United States · Nielsen v. Johnson · United States v. State of Texas
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is to enable the court to determine whether the facts sought to be established would be material or competent in the determination of the matter in controversy in the expected action. If facts could not conceivably be material or competent in the expected action, perpetuation of the testimony expected to establish them will not be permitted, since it would not prevent a failure or delay of justice. If none of the facts are material or competent the petition should be denied in its entirety, while if some are material and competent the order of the court will be drawn so as to exclude the perpetuation of testimony relative to the immaterial or incompetent matter. It should be borne in mind that since the issues of the expected action are not likely to be as well defined as in a pending action, a more liberal stand of materiality and competency will be applied. The standard adopted by the Supreme Court is: could the facts sought to be perpetuated conceivably be material or competent in the expected action?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has no application to oral statements made by those engaged in negotiating the treaty which were not embodied in any writing and were not communicated to the government of the negotiator or to its ratifying body.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Petition. A person who desires to perpetuate testimony regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the United States may file a verified petition in the United States district court in the district of the residence of any expected, adverse party. The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show: 1, that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a court of the United States but is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought, ... and 5, the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which the petitioner expects to elicit from each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons to be examined named in the petition, for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allen v. Allen
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.