Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 Ariz. 232 - State v. Cota

State v. Cota’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
5
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2020

23 state decisions

801965197019801990200020102020decided

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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Roth v. United States · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Winters v. People of State of New York · United States v. Petrillo

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

  1. ““The Constitution only requires that language convey a sufficiently definite warning as to proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. That there will be marginal cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls is no sufficient reason to hold the language too ambiguous to define a criminal offense [Citation omitted].” State v. Cota, 99 Ariz. 233, 236 , 408 P.2d 23, 26 (1965).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]t forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. State v. Cota, 99 Ariz. 233, 236 , 408 P.2d 23, 26 (1965).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Acts of gross and open indecency or obscenity, injurious to public morals, are indictable at common law, as violative of the public policy that requires from the offender retribution for acts that flaunt accepted standards of conduct.” Id. at 515, 68 S.Ct. at 670 .”
    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.