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 1985–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safetygreen1 sentence2018In interpreting this rule, the Arizona Supreme Court stated in Brenda D. that “to avoid due process concerns, a juvenile court’s discretionary finding of wavier based on a parent’s failure to appear for a termination adjudication hearing should be made at the start of the hearing, before the proceeding commences.” 243 Ariz. at 444, ¶ 23. ¶11 However, a court’s failure to strictly comply with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court does not necessarily require a 5 THOMAS M. v. DANETTE G., G.M. | 1 | 1 |
Foremost-McKesson Corp. v. Allied Chemical Co.green2 sentences1985“The duty placed on the manufacturer is that it know or, through testing and other investigation, should know of the product’s hazards. [Citations omitted.] It then has the duty to provide adequate warnings about those hazards to the foreseeable consumer.” Foremost-McKesson Corp. v. Allied Chemical Co., 140 Ariz. 108, 112 , 680 P.2d 818, 822 (App.1983). 1985“The duty placed on the manufacturer is that it know or, through testing and other investigation, should know of the product’s hazards. [Citations omitted.] It then has the duty to provide adequate warnings about those hazards to the foreseeable consumer.” Foremost-McKesson Corp. v. Allied Chemical Co., 140 Ariz. 108, 112 , 680 P.2d 818, 822 (App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maake v. Ross Operating Valve Co.
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 247 . 2023Id. at 245-46 . ¶13 We determined a reasonable jury could have found Ross’s buttons and valve were unreasonably dangerous absent “a warning as to the requirement of additional components” needed to prevent unexpected power strokes. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
2 sentences2017A.R.S. § 8-863(C); see also § 8-537(C) (same directive for termination proceeding initiated by petition and analyzed in Christy A. v. ADES, 217 Ariz. 299 , 173 P.3d 463 (App. 2007)). 4 The Supreme Court has promulgated Rule 66(D)(2) to give effect to the statutory directives: If the court finds the parent ... failed to appear at the termination adjudication hearing -without good cause shown, had notice of the hearing, was properly served pursuant to Rule 64 and had been previously admonished regarding the consequences of failure to appear, including a warning that the hearing could go forward 2017A.R.S. § 8-863(C); see also § 8-537(C) (same directive for termination proceeding initiated by petition and analyzed in Christy A. v. ADES, 217 Ariz. 299 , 173 P.3d 463 (App. 2007)). 4 The Supreme Court has promulgated Rule 66(D)(2) to give effect to the statutory directives: If the court finds the parent ... failed to appear at the termination adjudication hearing -without good cause shown, had notice of the hearing, was properly served pursuant to Rule 64 and had been previously admonished regarding the consequences of failure to appear, including a warning that the hearing could go forward | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2015But as the proponent of the affirmative defense, the State — not Glazer — was required to prove its compliance with all aspects of § 12-820.03, including the warning requirement, see Hegel, 122 Ariz. at 56 , 593 P.2d at 279 , and it failed to do so. ¶ 34 The State also contends that it was not required to comply with the warning requirement because “no warning could have allowed the public to take suitable precautions.” The State admits, however, it failed to present any evidence to permit the jury to make that determination. 2015But as the proponent of the affirmative defense, the State — not Glazer — was required to prove its compliance with all aspects of § 12-820.03, including the warning requirement, see Hegel, 122 Ariz. at 56 , 593 P.2d at 279 , and it failed to do so. ¶ 34 The State also contends that it was not required to comply with the warning requirement because “no warning could have allowed the public to take suitable precautions.” The State admits, however, it failed to present any evidence to permit the jury to make that determination. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.