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.
20 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Steelmangreen2 sentences2001See Steelman, 120 Ariz. at 317 , 585 P.2d at 1229 (“[I]f the patient believes the examination is for purposes of treatment, the privileges will apply even if there are also other purposes for the examination.”); cf. Fodor, 179 Ariz. at 448 , 880 P.2d at 668 (“The test for determining whether a communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege is a subjective one; it focuses primarily on the state of mind of the client.”). 2001See Steelman, 120 Ariz. at 317 , 585 P.2d at 1229 (“[I]f the patient believes the examination is for purposes of treatment, the privileges will apply even if there are also other purposes for the examination.”); cf. Fodor, 179 Ariz. at 448 , 880 P.2d at 668 (“The test for determining whether a communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege is a subjective one; it focuses primarily on the state of mind of the client.”). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029green2 sentences2016See A.R.S. § 36-533(B) (stating that physicians’ affidavits “shall also include any of the results of the physical examination of the patient if relevant to the patient’s psychiatric condition”); see also MH-201000029, 225 Ariz. at 503-04, ¶ 14, 240 P.3d 1262 . ¶ 10 The examination requirement may be excused if the patient refuses or other circumstances render compliance impracticable. 2016See A.R.S. § 36-533(B) (stating that physicians’ affidavits “shall also include any of the results of the physical examination of the patient if relevant to the patient’s psychiatric condition”); see also MH-201000029, 225 Ariz. at 503-04, ¶ 14, 240 P.3d 1262 . ¶ 10 The examination requirement may be excused if the patient refuses or other circumstances render compliance impracticable. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mh2011-000914green2 sentences2016See In re MH2011-000914, 229 Ariz. 312, 315, ¶¶ 10-11 , 275 P.3d 611 (App. 2012). 2016See In re MH2011-000914, 229 Ariz. 312, 315, ¶¶ 10-11 , 275 P.3d 611 (App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Graingegreen2 sentences2015It is not the same as finding an item to be ‘obscene’ and entirely undeserving of the protection of the First Amendment.” State v. Grainge, 186 Ariz. 55, 59 , 918 P.2d 1073, 1077 (App. 1996). 2015It is not the same as finding an item to be ‘obscene’ and entirely undeserving of the protection of the First Amendment.” State v. Grainge, 186 Ariz. 55, 59 , 918 P.2d 1073, 1077 (App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
In re MH 2008-000438green1 sentence2012Compare In re MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 , 863 P.2d 284, 287 (App.1993) (physician not required to “engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained” to conduct an examination) with MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 281, ¶ 18, 205 P.3d at 1128 (proceedings based on affidavit submitted without further effort to examine a patient whose medicated state precluded attempted examination void for non-compliance). ¶ 11 We are not persuaded by the State’s argument that requesting an attorney relieves the evaluating physician of the obligation to conduct a | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxxgreen1 sentence2012Compare In re MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 , 863 P.2d 284, 287 (App.1993) (physician not required to “engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained” to conduct an examination) with MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 281, ¶ 18, 205 P.3d at 1128 (proceedings based on affidavit submitted without further effort to examine a patient whose medicated state precluded attempted examination void for non-compliance). ¶ 11 We are not persuaded by the State’s argument that requesting an attorney relieves the evaluating physician of the obligation to conduct a | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH-1140-6-93.green2 sentences2012Compare In re MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 , 863 P.2d 284, 287 (App.1993) (physician not required to “engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained” to conduct an examination) with MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 281, ¶ 18, 205 P.3d at 1128 (proceedings based on affidavit submitted without further effort to examine a patient whose medicated state precluded attempted examination void for non-compliance). ¶ 11 We are not persuaded by the State’s argument that requesting an attorney relieves the evaluating physician of the obligation to conduct a 2012Compare In re MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 , 863 P.2d 284, 287 (App.1993) (physician not required to “engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained” to conduct an examination) with MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 281, ¶ 18, 205 P.3d at 1128 (proceedings based on affidavit submitted without further effort to examine a patient whose medicated state precluded attempted examination void for non-compliance). ¶ 11 We are not persuaded by the State’s argument that requesting an attorney relieves the evaluating physician of the obligation to conduct a | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592green2 sentences2012Compare In re MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 , 863 P.2d 284, 287 (App.1993) (physician not required to “engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained” to conduct an examination) with MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 281, ¶ 18, 205 P.3d at 1128 (proceedings based on affidavit submitted without further effort to examine a patient whose medicated state precluded attempted examination void for non-compliance). ¶ 11 We are not persuaded by the State’s argument that requesting an attorney relieves the evaluating physician of the obligation to conduct a 2012Compare In re MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 , 863 P.2d 284, 287 (App.1993) (physician not required to “engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained” to conduct an examination) with MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 281, ¶ 18, 205 P.3d at 1128 (proceedings based on affidavit submitted without further effort to examine a patient whose medicated state precluded attempted examination void for non-compliance). ¶ 11 We are not persuaded by the State’s argument that requesting an attorney relieves the evaluating physician of the obligation to conduct a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fodorgreen2 sentences2001See Steelman, 120 Ariz. at 317 , 585 P.2d at 1229 (“[I]f the patient believes the examination is for purposes of treatment, the privileges will apply even if there are also other purposes for the examination.”); cf. Fodor, 179 Ariz. at 448 , 880 P.2d at 668 (“The test for determining whether a communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege is a subjective one; it focuses primarily on the state of mind of the client.”). 2001See Steelman, 120 Ariz. at 317 , 585 P.2d at 1229 (“[I]f the patient believes the examination is for purposes of treatment, the privileges will apply even if there are also other purposes for the examination.”); cf. Fodor, 179 Ariz. at 448 , 880 P.2d at 668 (“The test for determining whether a communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege is a subjective one; it focuses primarily on the state of mind of the client.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bishopgreen2 sentences1989State v. Salazar, 128 Ariz. 461, 462 , 626 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1981); State v. Bishop, 137 Ariz. 5, 8 , 667 P.2d 1331, 1334 (App.1983). 1989State v. Salazar, 128 Ariz. 461, 462 , 626 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1981); State v. Bishop, 137 Ariz. 5, 8 , 667 P.2d 1331, 1334 (App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salazargreen2 sentences1989State v. Salazar, 128 Ariz. 461, 462 , 626 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1981); State v. Bishop, 137 Ariz. 5, 8 , 667 P.2d 1331, 1334 (App.1983). 1989State v. Salazar, 128 Ariz. 461, 462 , 626 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1981); State v. Bishop, 137 Ariz. 5, 8 , 667 P.2d 1331, 1334 (App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Application of Gaultgreen | 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. Smith
green
2 sentences1966In State v. Smith, 99 Ariz. 106 , 407 P.2d 74 (1965), where the defendant alleged er^ ror in the trial court by its failure to appoint counsel at his preliminary hearing, we stated: “We have held that failure to assign counsel prior to a preliminary examination is not error, unless a defendant’s position is prejudiced thereby. 1966In State v. Smith, 99 Ariz. 106 , 407 P.2d 74 (1965), where the defendant alleged er^ ror in the trial court by its failure to appoint counsel at his preliminary hearing, we stated: “We have held that failure to assign counsel prior to a preliminary examination is not error, unless a defendant’s position is prejudiced thereby. | 3 | 1966–1969 |
Mission Insurance v. Aid Insurance Services
green
1 sentence2024Here, an examination of those factors leads us to conclude that “managerial functions of an additionally named insured on a commercial automobile policy” do not constitute “use” of a covered vehicle. ¶23 The legislative purpose of our omnibus insurance coverage statute is “to prevent persons injured by the use of a motor vehicle, whether in highway driving or otherwise, from being left uncompensated because of restrictive clauses in the policy insuring the vehicle.” Mission Ins., 120 Ariz. at 222 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2004Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 388 , 710 P.2d at 1043 . ¶ 44 Not all factors need be weighed equally. 2004Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 388 , 710 P.2d at 1043 . ¶ 44 Not all factors need be weighed equally. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas
green
2 sentences1996It is not the same as finding an item to be “obscene” and entirely undeserving of the protection of the First Amendment. 2 See generally Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 , 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2614 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) (obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 690 , 88 S.Ct. 1298, 1306 , 20 L.Ed.2d 225 (1968) (state may regulate the dissemination to juveniles, and their access to, material harmful to them, but which the state could not regulate as to adults). 1996It is not the same as finding an item to be “obscene” and entirely undeserving of the protection of the First Amendment. 2 See generally Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 , 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2614 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) (obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 690 , 88 S.Ct. 1298, 1306 , 20 L.Ed.2d 225 (1968) (state may regulate the dissemination to juveniles, and their access to, material harmful to them, but which the state could not regulate as to adults). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Miller v. California
green
2 sentences1996It is not the same as finding an item to be “obscene” and entirely undeserving of the protection of the First Amendment. 2 See generally Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 , 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2614 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) (obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 690 , 88 S.Ct. 1298, 1306 , 20 L.Ed.2d 225 (1968) (state may regulate the dissemination to juveniles, and their access to, material harmful to them, but which the state could not regulate as to adults). 1996It is not the same as finding an item to be “obscene” and entirely undeserving of the protection of the First Amendment. 2 See generally Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 , 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2614 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) (obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 690 , 88 S.Ct. 1298, 1306 , 20 L.Ed.2d 225 (1968) (state may regulate the dissemination to juveniles, and their access to, material harmful to them, but which the state could not regulate as to adults). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Bartlett
green
2 sentences1995Bartlett II, 171 Ariz. at 304 , 830 P.2d at 825 . 1995Bartlett II, 171 Ariz. at 304 , 830 P.2d at 825 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1987State v. Smith, 146 Ariz. 325 , 705 P.2d 1376 (App.1985). 1987State v. Smith, 146 Ariz. 325 , 705 P.2d 1376 (App.1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Spencer
green
2 sentences1983The court also noted that counsel should be aware of § 3.1(f), ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution, that the “prosecutor should avoid interviewing a prospective witness except in the presence of a third person”); Jackson v. United States, 297 F.2d 195 (D.C.Cir.1961) (court chastised defense trial counsel for his cross examination of a police officer regarding a phone conversation the defense attorney allegedly had with the officer, where the defense attorney suggested inferences he was not prepared to prove without taking the witness stand himself); United States v. Vereen, 429 F.2d 713 1983The court also noted that counsel should be aware of § 3.1(f), ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution, that the “prosecutor should avoid interviewing a prospective witness except in the presence of a third person”); Jackson v. United States, 297 F.2d 195 (D.C.Cir.1961) (court chastised defense trial counsel for his cross examination of a police officer regarding a phone conversation the defense attorney allegedly had with the officer, where the defense attorney suggested inferences he was not prepared to prove without taking the witness stand himself); United States v. Vereen, 429 F.2d 713 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Roby v. State
green
1 sentence1983To support this position, he cites a number of cases, all of which we find distinguishable: Roby v. State, 587 P.2d 641 (Wyo.1978) (the court noted that the prosecutor’s examination of a defense witness about a conversation he had with the witness over the phone was not a proper procedure. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
William J. Jackson v. United States
green
1 sentence1983The court also noted that counsel should be aware of § 3.1(f), ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution, that the “prosecutor should avoid interviewing a prospective witness except in the presence of a third person”); Jackson v. United States, 297 F.2d 195 (D.C.Cir.1961) (court chastised defense trial counsel for his cross examination of a police officer regarding a phone conversation the defense attorney allegedly had with the officer, where the defense attorney suggested inferences he was not prepared to prove without taking the witness stand himself); United States v. Vereen, 429 F.2d 713 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. Richard Vereen
green
1 sentence1983The court also noted that counsel should be aware of § 3.1(f), ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution, that the “prosecutor should avoid interviewing a prospective witness except in the presence of a third person”); Jackson v. United States, 297 F.2d 195 (D.C.Cir.1961) (court chastised defense trial counsel for his cross examination of a police officer regarding a phone conversation the defense attorney allegedly had with the officer, where the defense attorney suggested inferences he was not prepared to prove without taking the witness stand himself); United States v. Vereen, 429 F.2d 713 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Farmer
green
2 sentences1982State v. Farmer, 126 Ariz. 569 , 617 P.2d 521 (1980). 1982State v. Farmer, 126 Ariz. 569 , 617 P.2d 521 (1980). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Reid
green
2 sentences1978Rule 11.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Messier, 114 Ariz. 522 , 562 P.2d 402 (1977); State v. De Vote, 87 Ariz. 179 , 349 P.2d 189 (1960); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123 , 348 P.2d 731 (1960). 1978Rule 11.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Messier, 114 Ariz. 522 , 562 P.2d 402 (1977); State v. De Vote, 87 Ariz. 179 , 349 P.2d 189 (1960); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123 , 348 P.2d 731 (1960). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. De Vote
green
2 sentences1978Rule 11.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Messier, 114 Ariz. 522 , 562 P.2d 402 (1977); State v. De Vote, 87 Ariz. 179 , 349 P.2d 189 (1960); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123 , 348 P.2d 731 (1960). 1978Rule 11.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Messier, 114 Ariz. 522 , 562 P.2d 402 (1977); State v. De Vote, 87 Ariz. 179 , 349 P.2d 189 (1960); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123 , 348 P.2d 731 (1960). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Messier
green
2 sentences1978Rule 11.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Messier, 114 Ariz. 522 , 562 P.2d 402 (1977); State v. De Vote, 87 Ariz. 179 , 349 P.2d 189 (1960); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123 , 348 P.2d 731 (1960). 1978Rule 11.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Messier, 114 Ariz. 522 , 562 P.2d 402 (1977); State v. De Vote, 87 Ariz. 179 , 349 P.2d 189 (1960); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123 , 348 P.2d 731 (1960). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Bennett v. State
green
2 sentences1968State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 ; Bennett v. State, 15 Ariz. 58 , 136 P. 276 ; People v. McRoberts, 1 Cal.App. 25 , 81 P. 734 . 1968State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 ; Bennett v. State, 15 Ariz. 58 , 136 P. 276 ; People v. McRoberts, 1 Cal.App. 25 , 81 P. 734 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Schantz
green
2 sentences1968State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 ; Bennett v. State, 15 Ariz. 58 , 136 P. 276 ; People v. McRoberts, 1 Cal.App. 25 , 81 P. 734 . 1968State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 ; Bennett v. State, 15 Ariz. 58 , 136 P. 276 ; People v. McRoberts, 1 Cal.App. 25 , 81 P. 734 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
People v. McRoberts
green
2 sentences1968State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 ; Bennett v. State, 15 Ariz. 58 , 136 P. 276 ; People v. McRoberts, 1 Cal.App. 25 , 81 P. 734 . 1968State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 ; Bennett v. State, 15 Ariz. 58 , 136 P. 276 ; People v. McRoberts, 1 Cal.App. 25 , 81 P. 734 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Graninger
green
2 sentences1967State v. Graninger, 96 Ariz. 172 , 393 P.2d 266 (1964). 1967State v. Graninger, 96 Ariz. 172 , 393 P.2d 266 (1964). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| State v. Peats green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| State v. Schumacher green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| State v. Gortarez green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.