Ward v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Fragoso v. Fell (2005), Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
58 state decisions
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 Carter v. Seaboard Finance Co. · Adams v. Bolin · State Ex Rel. Andrews v. Superior Court · Whitman v. Moore · Yosemite Lumber Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The superior courts provided for in this article shall constitute a single court, composed of all the duly elected or appointed judges in each of the counties of the state. * * * ” A.R.S.Const., Art. 6, § 13.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When constitutional questions have arisen, the court has availed itself of pertinent records of the Constitutional Convention for an insight into the effect intended from the provision in question. Bohannan v. Corporation Commission, 82 Ariz. 299 , 313 P.2d 379 [1957]. This approach, we believe, is equally applicable when, as here, the subject matter is a constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature and referred to a vote of all of the qualified voters of the state at a general election. Article XXI of the Constitution of Arizona provides that in such cases the voters are to be apprised of the purpose and intended effect of the change by means of a publicity pamphlet which the Secretary of State is required by law to prepare and distribute prior to the election. See A.R.S. § 19-123. We take judicial notice of the official records of the Secretary of State. Bolin v. Superior Court, 85 Ariz. 131 , 333 P.2d 295 [1958]. Although this background material is not necessarily controlling in all cases, it is entitled to some weight.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It has been held that when a constitutional provision is clear on its face and is logically capable of only one interpretation, no extrinsic matter may be shown in support of a construction which would vary its apparent meaning, Adams v. Bolin, 74 Ariz. 269 , 247 P.2d 617 , 33 A.L.R.2d 1102 . However, when, as in this case, the constitutional language is ambiguous, or when a construction is urged which would result in an absurd situation, the court may look behind the bare words of the provision in order to determine the conditions which gave rise to it and the effect which it was intended to have. (Citations omitted).” Id. at 28-29, 344 P.2d at 495 .”
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.