green
Positive treatment
13.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Huerstel
State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491, 495 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hoskins
(2×)
Miranda ... may nevertheless be used for impeachment of the testimony given by the defendant ... provided the statements were obtained without violation of the traditional standards for evaluating voluntariness and trustworthiness.” State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491, 495 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1984) (citing Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975)). ¶ 26 Specifically, defendant argues that police delayed the Miranda warning, ignored his request for counsel, and withheld medical attention until after interrogation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County
Co., 138 Ariz. 491, 491 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1310 (1984) (Denial of review usually attests approval of result, but not necessar ily approval of analysis.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Glover
(Prejean v. State (Tex.Ct.App. 1986) 704 S.W.2d 119, 121 ; People v. Keech (1983) 121 Misc.2d 368 [ 467 N.Y.S.2d 786, 788 ]; State v. Walker (1984) 138 Ariz. 491 [ 675 P.2d 1310, 1313 ].) The Arizona Supreme Court’s interpretation of its arson statute in State v. Vickers (1984) 138 Ariz. 450 [ 675 P.2d 710, 711 ], and in State v. Walker, supra, 675 P.2d at page 1313, is consistent with the general rule utilized by state courts in determining whether an arson statute requires a specific intent.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Conner
See generally Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (voluntary statements taken in violation of Miranda admissible to impeach); State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491, 495 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Metro Productions, Inc.
Co., 138 Ariz. 491, 491 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1310 (1984). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dale C. Davis v. Metro Productions, Inc. Ralph Smith, and Michael L. Miller, Dale C. Davis v. Metro Productions, Inc. Michael L. Miller, and Ralph Smith
Co., 138 Ariz. 491, 491 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1310 (1984) 4 See supra note 2 5 See supra note 2 6 That denial was never reconsidered; the trial judge wrote the lawyers before trial stating that he considered the issue to have been fully determined on the Rule 12(b)(2) motion and that no further evidence would be taken on the issue at trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Gardner
(2×)
United States v. McManaman, 606 F.2d 919, 924-25 (10th Cir.1979); State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1984); Lemasters v. People, 678 P.2d 538, 542-43 (Colo. 1984); State v. Cartwright, 200 Mont. 91 , 650 P.2d 758, 763 (1982); State v. Holland, 98 Wash.2d 507, 520 , 656 P.2d 1056, 1063 (1983); State v. Mills, 76 Or.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Carrillo
State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491, 495 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1984).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Moody
(4×)
See State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491, 494 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1313 (1984) (finding an instruction that misstates the law is an error).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pettit
(2×)
See State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491, 495 , 675 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1984) (statements obtained in violation of Miranda may nevertheless be used to impeach defendant at trial provided they were voluntarily made). ¶ 18 The State argues that the record does not substantiate the trial court’s finding that defendant’s stationhouse statements were involuntary.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rendon
(2×)
See State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491 , 675 P.2d 1310 (1984) (arson); State v. Noriega, 144 Ariz. 258 , 697 P.2d 341 (App.1985) (trafficking in stolen property); State v. O’Brien, 123 Ariz. 578 , 601 P.2d 341 (App.1979) (conspiracy); State v. Cappe, 122 Ariz. 249 , 594 P.2d 115 (App.1979) (assault with a deadly weapon); State v. Goodman, 22 Ariz.App. 275 , 526 P.2d 1073 (1974) (grand theft by false pretenses). 154 Ariz. at 368 , 742 P.2d at 1354 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
(2×)
See State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491 , 675 P.2d 1310 (1984) (arson); State v. Noriega, 144 Ariz. 258 , 697 P.2d 341 (App.1985) (trafficking in stolen property); State v. O’Brien, 123 Ariz. 578 , 601 P.2d 341 (App.1979) (conspiracy); State v. Cappe, 122 Ariz. 249 , 594 P.2d 115 (App.1979) (assault with a deadly weapon); State v. Goodman, 22 Ariz.App. 275 , 526 P.2d 1073 (App.1974) (grand theft by false pretenses).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jon Mark HAGEN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Garnishee Defendant-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Garnishee Defendant-Appellant
17193-PR.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Jan 3, 1984.
Hofmann, Salcito, Stevens & Myers by Leroy W. Hofmann, Phoenix, for plaintiffappellee., Winston & Strawn by W. Charles Thomson, III, Phoenix, for garnishee defendant-appellant.
Feldman, Holohan, Gordon, Hays, Cameron.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
FELDMAN, Justice.
This is a contested garnishment proceeding brought against an insurer by the insured’s assignee. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the assignee, Hagen. The court of appeals reversed and remanded with instructions. Hagen v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, 138 Ariz. 521, 675 P.2d 1340 (App.1983). Both parties have petitioned us for review. See Rule 23(a), Arizona Rules of Civ.App.Proc., 17A A.R.S.
After review of the record, we conclude that the opinion of the court of appeals is correct and that all issues were properly decided. Ordinarily, we would simply deny review. However, while denial of review usually attests our approval of the result reached by the court of appeals, it does not necessarily indicate our approval of the legal analysis contained in the opinion. See generally Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes, 439 U.S. 463, 477, 99 S.Ct. 740, 749, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 n. 20 (1979). Because we do agree with the court’s legal analysis in the case at bench, and because the opinion deals with several issues not previously settled in this State, we hereby adopt the opinion of the court of appeals and indicate our agreement with the legal principles set forth in that opinion.
HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and HAYS and CAMERON, JJ., concur.