Rojas v. Kimble’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably Swichtenberg v. Brimer (1991), Sweis v. Chatwin (1978)
33 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 Murphey v. Gray · Duncan v. Mack · Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission · Manning v. Perry · Lane v. Ferguson
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"While a trial de novo means a new trial as though it were one of original jurisdiction in the superior court, this does not mean that the superior court may treat the action as though it had actually been commenced therein in order to escape jurisdictional limitations imposed by the constitution or statutes. Jurisdiction limitations to hear and determine the case remain the same as were imposed upon the court from which the appeal arose. The appellate jurisdiction of the superior court may not be enlarged by pointing to that court's original jurisdiction which might have been invoked had the proceeding been initiated there."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““We have repeatedly held that a trial de novo means a new trial ‘as though it were one of original jurisdiction in the superior court.’ [ 59 Ariz. 36 , 122 P.2d (215) 218]. Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission, 78 Ariz. 112 , 276 P.2d 534 ; Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369 , 249 P.2d 837 ; Cox v. Superior Court, 73 Ariz. 93 , 237 P.2d 820 ; Lane v. Ferguson, 62 Ariz. 184 , 156 P.2d 236 ; Duncan v. Mack, 59 Ariz. 36 , 122 P.2d 215 ; Manning v. Perry, 48 Ariz. 425 , 62 P.2d 693 .” 89 Ariz. at 279 , 361 P.2d at 405 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Even though the [superior] court would have had jurisdiction had the action originated therein, . . . the fact that the case is tried de novo in the superior court does not enable that court to treat the action as though it had been commenced therein.”
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.