State v. Stago’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 65 state decisions

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

1. “"In the instant case, the Sheriff of Navajo County testified that he had appointed Dillon as a deputy sheriff and issued to him a card confirming the appointment. This is sufficient compliance with the statute that `appointments shall be in writing.' * * * * * * "As noted, the written appointment of Dillon as deputy sheriff was not recorded as is required by the statute. However, such statutes have often been construed as directory so that in any event his acts were valid as a de facto officer. 43 Am.Jur. 234, Public Officers, Section 483. It has been specifically held that the failure of a deputy sheriff to qualify by filing his appointment and oath of office, as required by the statute, did not deprive him of de facto status."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boies v. Cole · 4 Ariz. App. 591 - State v. Ovens

2. ““As to the second question, it appears that the county attorney in cross-examining the defendant asked him if he had ever been convicted of a felony-After objection and discussion between the court and counsel, the question was withdrawn; seemingly, the county attorney was not prepared to prove the prior conviction if the defendant answered in the negative. While it is. well settled in this jurisdiction that when a defendant offers himself as a witness he may be examined on whether he has suffered a previous conviction of a felony, State v. Polan, 78 Ariz. 253 , 278 P.2d 432 ; Hadley v. State, 25 Ariz 23, 212 P. 458 , it is also equally well settled that a prosecuting officer, in or der to impeach him as a witness, cannot engage in questioning which casts insinuations without being prepared and able to prove the insinuations, State v. Singleton, 66 Ariz. 49 , 182 P.2d 920 . Although the trial court instructed the jury to disregard ‘ * * * any thought whatsoever of the meaning of the question propounded * * * prejudices which are so easily aroused are not thus so readily expunged.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Eddington

3. ““By specifying when offenses may be consolidated, there is impliedly negatived any authority to consolidate under other or different circumstances. Plainly these offenses are not different statements of the same offense, nor are they of the same class of crime. No facts are alleged on the in-formations from which it can be inferred that the two offenses are connected together in their commission. The simple allegations of both that they were committed on or about the 20th day of April, 1956, does not alone suggest that they were so connected as to be part of the same transaction. Moreover, the evidence introduced at the trial establishes that the two incidents of burglary and resisting and obstructing a public officer were not related in time, place, or causality. The consolidation of the two informations for trial is, therefore, prejudicial and reversible error, (citations omitted).” State v. Stago, 82 Ariz. 285, 287 , 312 P.2d 160, 161 (1957).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Williams