Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 Ariz. 15 - Nethken v. State

Nethken v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
July 1976
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 1976

14 state decisions

401940195019601970decided

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 State Tax Commission v. United Verde Extension Mining Co. · Sullivan v. Cashion · Melendez v. Johns · Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Neale · County of Maricopa v. Hodgin

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. ““The revision of 1928 has greatly reduced the language contained in the statutes of 1913 but has not changed its meaning. The direction to the code commissioner was that he ‘revise and codify the laws, of the State * * *. The said Commissioner shall not, however, undertake to make any changerof existing laws, but shall harmonize where necessary, reduce in language, and remove inconsistencies where the same are found to exist ;***.’ Sec. 3,. Chap. 35, Laws of 1925. From this language it is apparent it was not intended to-authorize any change in the meaning of the laws. We have on numerous occasions, when considering-the revision of 1928, held the same meaning was carried forward, even though the language was changed by omission of words and sometimes sentences, unless it was clear that a change in meaning was intended. In re Sullivan’s Estate, 38 Ariz. 387 , 300 P. 193 ; State Tax Comm. v. United Verde Extension Mining Co., 39 Ariz. 136 , 4 P.2d 395 ; Albert Steinfeld & Co. v. Allison Mining Co., 41 Ariz. 340 , 18 P.2d 267 ; Castaneda v. National Cash Register Co., 43 Ariz. 119 , 29 P.2d 730 ; Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass’n v. Neale, 43 Ariz. 532 , 33 P.2d 604 ; County of Maricopa v. Hodgin, 46 Ariz. 247 , 50 P.2d 15 , 101 A.L.R. 793 ; Melendez v. Johns, 51 Ariz. 331 , 76 P.2d 1163 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““(a) A person shall be regarded as practicing medicine and surgery, or either, who, by any indication or statement, claims his ability or willingness to, or does, diagnosticate or prognosticate any human ills, real or imaginary, or claims his ability or willingness to, or does, prescribe or administer any medicine, treatment or practice, or performs any operation, manipulation, or application for compensation * * *. (Emphasis supplied.) “(b) * * * »”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““ 'Naturopathy’ includes all forms of physiotherapy and means a system of treating the abnormalities of the human mind .and body by the use of drugless and nonsurgical methods, including the use of physical, electrical, hygienic and sanitary measures incident thereto.””
    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.