3 Ariz. App. 237 - State v. Dowthard’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 1989
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Kuhnley · Central Copper Co. v. Klefisch · 1 Ariz. App. 112 - State v. Farrell · 226 Cal. App. 2d 700 - People v. Contreras · Tice v. State
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally, where the defendant, by putting on testimony opens the door to proper rebuttal, he cannot complain if rebuttal testimony, offered by the State, also tends to prove or reinforce the State’s case in chief * * *.” State v. Dowthard, 3 Ariz.App. 237, 239 , 413 P.2d 296, 298 (1966).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We do not believe that this was an abuse of discretion for on rebuttal the state may offer any competent evidence which is a direct reply to or a contradiction of any material evidence introduced by the accused even though it may tend to prove another offense or strengthen the prosecution’s case.” State v. Kuhnley, 74 Ariz. 10, 19 , 242 P.2d 843, 849 (1952).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kountz
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.