Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Zolingreen2 sentences2023“Upon a prima facie showing of privilege, the party contesting the privilege must demonstrate a good faith basis that an in camera review . . . would reveal waiver of the privilege or establish an applicable exception.” Id. at 361 ¶ 15 (citing Clements, 249 Ariz. at 438 ¶ 1); see also United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989) (“Before engaging in in camera review to determine the applicability of the crime-fraud exception, ‘the judge should require a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person,’ that in camera review of the materials may rev 2022Clements, 249 Ariz. at 438 ¶ 1 (quoting United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989)). | 2 | 2 |
Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/stategreen2 sentences2023“Upon a prima facie showing of privilege, the party contesting the privilege must demonstrate a good faith basis that an in camera review . . . would reveal waiver of the privilege or establish an applicable exception.” Id. at 361 ¶ 15 (citing Clements, 249 Ariz. at 438 ¶ 1); see also United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989) (“Before engaging in in camera review to determine the applicability of the crime-fraud exception, ‘the judge should require a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person,’ that in camera review of the materials may rev 2023“Upon a prima facie showing of privilege, the party contesting the privilege must demonstrate a good faith basis that an in camera review . . . would reveal waiver of the privilege or establish an applicable exception.” Id. at 361 ¶ 15 (citing Clements, 249 Ariz. at 438 ¶ 1); see also United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989) (“Before engaging in in camera review to determine the applicability of the crime-fraud exception, ‘the judge should require a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person,’ that in camera review of the materials may rev | 1 | 3 |
State of Arizona Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Adlemangreen1 sentence2022See Adleman, 252 Ariz. at 361 ¶ 15. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moodygreen1 sentence2020See Moody, 208 Ariz. at 448-49 ¶¶ 76, 80; Warner, 150 Ariz. at 127 ; State v. Pecard, 196 Ariz. 371 , 378 ¶ 32 (App. 1999). ¶16 Here, as the proponent of the privilege, the burden to make a prima facie showing of privilege lies with Clements. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Warner
green
1 sentence2020See Moody, 208 Ariz. at 448-49 ¶¶ 76, 80; Warner, 150 Ariz. at 127 ; State v. Pecard, 196 Ariz. 371 , 378 ¶ 32 (App. 1999). ¶16 Here, as the proponent of the privilege, the burden to make a prima facie showing of privilege lies with Clements. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Pecard
green
1 sentence2020See Moody, 208 Ariz. at 448-49 ¶¶ 76, 80; Warner, 150 Ariz. at 127 ; State v. Pecard, 196 Ariz. 371 , 378 ¶ 32 (App. 1999). ¶16 Here, as the proponent of the privilege, the burden to make a prima facie showing of privilege lies with Clements. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.