Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 850 P.2d 1232 - State v. Archuleta

State v. Archuleta’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably State v. Pena (1994), State v. Fauci (2007)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 40 state decisions

2201993200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Moran v. Burbine · Zant v. Stephens

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

  1. “[I]f police have a valid right to arrest an individual for one crime, it does not matter if their subjective intent is in reality to collect information concerning another crime.... In other words, if the alleged pretext arrest could have taken place absent police suspicion of the defendant's involvement in another crime, then the arrest is lawful.... The arrest was not rendered invalid solely because the officers had a separate motive for arresting him....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing evidence not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Each defendant is an individual, and each case is unique in its facts. Any attempt to draw broad comparisons between defendants or crimes calls for speculation as to why a particular defendant or crime was dealt with by that jury in that particular fashion. The many factors which may in fluence a jury’s decision cannot easily be identified, let alone quantified.”
    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.