Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 678 P2D 864 - Armijo v. State

Armijo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Scadden v. State (1987), Crozier v. State (1986)

1 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

2601984199020002010decided

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 McCarthy v. United States · Morissette v. United States · Screws v. United States · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville

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

  1. ““ * * * with the limited exception of challenges to statutes that broadly prohibit speech protected by the First Amendment, a party must demonstrate the matter in which his own rights are adversely affected in light of the circumstances before the court in order to present his constitutional challenge.” Armijo v. State, Wyo., 678 P.2d 864, 868 (1984).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““(a) Whoever, while driving any vehicle under the influence of either intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, or a combination of both, to a degree which renders him incapable of safely driving a vehicle, causes the death of another person shall be guilty of aggravated homicide by vehicle ⅝ * *.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““ * * * It follows that to prove a violation of this statute the only intent which must be established beyond a reasonable doubt is that the acts which establish the offense were committed voluntarily. [Citations.] In this case [Armijo v. State] the appellant admitted in establishing the factual basis for his plea of guilty that he voluntarily became intoxicated to the extent that he wás rendered incapable of safely driving his vehicle, and while so driving it he collided with the victim, causing the victim’s death.””
    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.