State v. Locks’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably State v. Hernandez (1964), Application of Gault (1965)
31 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 Speiser v. Randall · Smith v. People of the State of California · Gitlow v. People of the State of New York · People v. Finkelstein · State v. Hudson County News Co.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If, as defendant here contends, the Arizona obscenity statute is in fact without the scienter requirement, then the statute must fall by force of the Smith holding. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has often recognized `* * * the basic constitutional principle that the construction of state laws is the exclusive responsibility of the state courts.' Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 , 523 n. 7, 78 S.Ct. 1332 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (1958). And for the reasons given below we construe Section 13-532 to require proof of guilty knowledge or scienter. "Since Smith was handed down in 1959 the highest courts of twelve states have been presented with the problem herein involved i.e. the construction to be given an obscenity statute which on its face does not require scienter. In nine of these jurisdictions, the statutes have been upheld as impliedly containing the scienter requirement. * * * * * * * * * "We choose to follow the lead of the majority of those courts which have ruled on this question and construe Section 13-532 as impliedly requiring scienter. In State v. Hooker, 45 Ariz. 202, 206 , 41 P.2d 1091, 1092 (1935) it was stated that: `It is our duty * * * to give to the language of all statutes a meaning that will render them constitutional if this can reasonably be done.' Again, in McManus v. Industrial Commission, 53 Ariz. 22, 28 , 85 P.2d 54, 56 (1938) this court observed that: `It is our duty to uphold an act if, on any reasonable theory, a construction may be gi”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A person is guilty of a misdemeanor who: 1. Writes, composes, prints, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, gives, loans or exhibits an obscene . or indecent writing, paper or book to any person, or designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints or otherwise prepares an obscene 'or indecent picture or print.” •”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Locks
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.