Ramirez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
February 1992
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Roth v. United States · Jacobellis v. Ohio · Mishkin v. State of New York · United States v. Klaw · 4 Ariz. App. 303 - City of Phoenix v. Fine
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““INSTRUCTION 4: You are instructed that under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, any person who knowingly buys, sells, barters, traffics in, or causes to be delivered or transported in Oklahoma, any picture, moving picture, series of pictures, drawing, diagram or photograph of any person or animal or caricature thereof in an act or acts of sexual intercourse or unnatural copulation shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” “INSTRUCTION 5: You are instructed that in support of his plea of not guilty the defendant claims that the material introduced as States Exhibit No. 1 is exempt from the law set forth in Instruction No. 4. In this connection, you are instructed that said law does not prohibit the sale of such material: 1. Pursuant to medical prescription or for use in any recognized school of medicine or veterinary science for educational purpose. 2. If the average person, applying contemporary community standards would not find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. A. ‘The person, applying contemporary community standards’ is determined by the material’s impact on an average person, rather than a particularly susceptible or sensitive person— or indeed a totally insensitive one. B. Prurient is defined by a Funk & Wagnalls dictionary as ‘1. Impure in thought and desire; lewd. 2. Having lustful cravings or desires. 3. Longing desirous.’ 3. If the depiction, otherwise prohibited by the State Law, of sexual conduct, is not so depicted in a patently offens”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hildahl v. State · Combs v. State“); City of Phoenix v. Fine, 4 Ariz.App. 303 , 420 P.2d 26 (”
1 later decision 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.