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.
18 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc.green2 sentences2005United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 , 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1710 , 16 L.Ed.2d 778, 793 (1966); see also Havasu Heights, 167 Ariz. at 387 , 807 P.2d at 1123 . ¶ 24 Hourani did not present any evidence that Mayberry had received information from an “extrajudicial source” or was unable to fairly evaluate the findings by the hearing officer and discuss the matter with other members of the Appellate Review Committee in deciding what sanction to impose. 2005United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 , 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1710 , 16 L.Ed.2d 778, 793 (1966); see also Havasu Heights, 167 Ariz. at 387 , 807 P.2d at 1123 . ¶ 24 Hourani did not present any evidence that Mayberry had received information from an “extrajudicial source” or was unable to fairly evaluate the findings by the hearing officer and discuss the matter with other members of the Appellate Review Committee in deciding what sanction to impose. | 2 | 2 |
Higgins v. Higginsgreen1 sentence2024Consistent with existing caselaw and A.R.S. § 25-319(A), Cotter held that absent a Rule 82(a) request, the superior court need not make specific findings about the eligibility criteria in A.R.S. § 25-319(A). 245 Ariz. at 87, ¶ 12; see also Higgins v. Higgins, 154 Ariz. 87, 88 (App. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Morelos v. Morelosgreen1 sentence2023Because the court properly identified the issue as “whether the deed from Kynast to Hess [i.e., the 2018 Deed] was delivered,” we treat the court’s findings and analysis of “the 2017 deed” as regarding the disputed 2018 Deed. 3 NEWMAN, et al. v. HESS Decision of the Court accepted.” Morelos v. Morelos, 129 Ariz. 354, 356 (App. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Hays v. Gamagreen2 sentences2017See Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99, 102, ¶ 18 , 67 P.3d 695 (2003); A.R.S. § 25-403(A). ¶ 28 We review the superior court’s interpretation of statutes and procedural rules de novo. 2017See Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99, 102, ¶ 18 , 67 P.3d 695 (2003); A.R.S. § 25-403(A). ¶ 28 We review the superior court’s interpretation of statutes and procedural rules de novo. | 1 | 1 |
Nold v. Noldgreen2 sentences2014The lack of findings regarding A.R.S. § 25-403(A) factors, however, is not waived by a party’s failure to raise the issue; “[t]his is because the findings requirement not only allows effective appellate review, but also provides the superior court with necessary baseline information against which to measure future petitions for changes in [legal decision-making].” In re Marriage of Christopher K., 233 Ariz. 297 , 301 n.6 ¶ 18, 311 P.3d 1110 , 1114 n.6 (App. 2013) (citing Reid, 222 Ariz. at 208 -10 ¶¶ 3 Although Mother relies on A.R.S. § 25-327(A), that statute applies to “[m]odification and te 2014The lack of findings regarding A.R.S. § 25-403(A) factors, however, is not waived by a party’s failure to raise the issue; “[t]his is because the findings requirement not only allows effective appellate review, but also provides the superior court with necessary baseline information against which to measure future petitions for changes in [legal decision-making].” In re Marriage of Christopher K., 233 Ariz. 297 , 301 n.6 ¶ 18, 311 P.3d 1110 , 1114 n.6 (App. 2013) (citing Reid, 222 Ariz. at 208 -10 ¶¶ 3 Although Mother relies on A.R.S. § 25-327(A), that statute applies to “[m]odification and te | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Grinnell Corp.green2 sentences2005United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 , 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1710 , 16 L.Ed.2d 778, 793 (1966); see also Havasu Heights, 167 Ariz. at 387 , 807 P.2d at 1123 . ¶ 24 Hourani did not present any evidence that Mayberry had received information from an “extrajudicial source” or was unable to fairly evaluate the findings by the hearing officer and discuss the matter with other members of the Appellate Review Committee in deciding what sanction to impose. 2005United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 , 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1710 , 16 L.Ed.2d 778, 793 (1966); see also Havasu Heights, 167 Ariz. at 387 , 807 P.2d at 1123 . ¶ 24 Hourani did not present any evidence that Mayberry had received information from an “extrajudicial source” or was unable to fairly evaluate the findings by the hearing officer and discuss the matter with other members of the Appellate Review Committee in deciding what sanction to impose. | 1 | 1 |
Kendall v. Malcolmgreen2 sentences2001See Kendall v. Malcolm, 98 Ariz. 329 , 404 P.2d 414 (1965); Paddock v. Brisbois, 35 Ariz. 214 , 276 P. 325 (1929). 2001See Kendall v. Malcolm, 98 Ariz. 329 , 404 P.2d 414 (1965); Paddock v. Brisbois, 35 Ariz. 214 , 276 P. 325 (1929). | 1 | 1 |
Spielman v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., Spielman v. Industrial Comm’n, 163 Ariz. 493, 496 , 788 P.2d 1244, 1247 (App.1989). 1994See, e.g., Spielman v. Industrial Comm’n, 163 Ariz. 493, 496 , 788 P.2d 1244, 1247 (App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Speargreen2 sentences1994In re Spear, 160 Ariz. 545, 551 , 774 P.2d 1335, 1341 (1989) (deference proper on issues of credibility). 1994In re Spear, 160 Ariz. 545, 551 , 774 P.2d 1335, 1341 (1989) (deference proper on issues of credibility). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Lincolngreen2 sentences1994In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235 , 798 P.2d 371, 373 (1990). 1994In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235 , 798 P.2d 371, 373 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ethridgegreen2 sentences1981See State v. Ethridge, 126 Ariz. 8 , 612 P.2d 59 (App.1980). 1981See State v. Ethridge, 126 Ariz. 8 , 612 P.2d 59 (App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Ratley v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1975It only searches the records to see whether the . commission’s findings are reasonably supported by the evidence.” Ratley v. Industrial Commission, 74 Ariz. 347, 349 , 248 P.2d 997,998 (1952) In this instance, there is some risk involved due merely to the type of surgerj recommended. 1975It only searches the records to see whether the . commission’s findings are reasonably supported by the evidence.” Ratley v. Industrial Commission, 74 Ariz. 347, 349 , 248 P.2d 997,998 (1952) In this instance, there is some risk involved due merely to the type of surgerj recommended. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24
green
2 sentences2005Therefore, Hourani failed to overcome the presumption of Mayberry’s “honesty and integrity.” Pavlik, 195 Ariz. 148, ¶ 24 , 985 P.2d at 639 . 2005Therefore, Hourani failed to overcome the presumption of Mayberry’s “honesty and integrity.” Pavlik, 195 Ariz. 148, ¶ 24 , 985 P.2d at 639 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933
green
2 sentences2023For example, in Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933, 135 Ariz. 278 (1982), our supreme court resolved a split between divisions on whether 6 STATE v. PEREZ-GUTIERREZ Opinion of the Court A.R.S. § 8-538(A) imposed a findings requirement before a juvenile order may be considered final. 135 Ariz. 278 , 280–81. 2023For example, in Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933, 135 Ariz. 278 (1982), our supreme court resolved a split between divisions on whether 6 STATE v. PEREZ-GUTIERREZ Opinion of the Court A.R.S. § 8-538(A) imposed a findings requirement before a juvenile order may be considered final. 135 Ariz. 278 , 280–81. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Christopher K. v. Markaa S.
green
2 sentences2014The lack of findings regarding A.R.S. § 25-403(A) factors, however, is not waived by a party’s failure to raise the issue; “[t]his is because the findings requirement not only allows effective appellate review, but also provides the superior court with necessary baseline information against which to measure future petitions for changes in [legal decision-making].” In re Marriage of Christopher K., 233 Ariz. 297 , 301 n.6 ¶ 18, 311 P.3d 1110 , 1114 n.6 (App. 2013) (citing Reid, 222 Ariz. at 208 -10 ¶¶ 3 Although Mother relies on A.R.S. § 25-327(A), that statute applies to “[m]odification and te 2014The lack of findings regarding A.R.S. § 25-403(A) factors, however, is not waived by a party’s failure to raise the issue; “[t]his is because the findings requirement not only allows effective appellate review, but also provides the superior court with necessary baseline information against which to measure future petitions for changes in [legal decision-making].” In re Marriage of Christopher K., 233 Ariz. 297 , 301 n.6 ¶ 18, 311 P.3d 1110 , 1114 n.6 (App. 2013) (citing Reid, 222 Ariz. at 208 -10 ¶¶ 3 Although Mother relies on A.R.S. § 25-327(A), that statute applies to “[m]odification and te | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Reid v. Reid
green
2 sentences2014The lack of findings regarding A.R.S. § 25-403(A) factors, however, is not waived by a party’s failure to raise the issue; “[t]his is because the findings requirement not only allows effective appellate review, but also provides the superior court with necessary baseline information against which to measure future petitions for changes in [legal decision-making].” In re Marriage of Christopher K., 233 Ariz. 297 , 301 n.6 ¶ 18, 311 P.3d 1110 , 1114 n.6 (App. 2013) (citing Reid, 222 Ariz. at 208 -10 ¶¶ 3 Although Mother relies on A.R.S. § 25-327(A), that statute applies to “[m]odification and te 2014The lack of findings regarding A.R.S. § 25-403(A) factors, however, is not waived by a party’s failure to raise the issue; “[t]his is because the findings requirement not only allows effective appellate review, but also provides the superior court with necessary baseline information against which to measure future petitions for changes in [legal decision-making].” In re Marriage of Christopher K., 233 Ariz. 297 , 301 n.6 ¶ 18, 311 P.3d 1110 , 1114 n.6 (App. 2013) (citing Reid, 222 Ariz. at 208 -10 ¶¶ 3 Although Mother relies on A.R.S. § 25-327(A), that statute applies to “[m]odification and te | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Greenlee County Justice Court
green
1 sentence2007The rule further provides that, after a hearing, “[t]he hearing judge shall decide the issues” and then “return the matter to the presiding judge who shall as quickly as possible assign the action back to the original judge or make a new assignment, depending on the findings of the hearing judge.” Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Paddock v. Brisbois
green
2 sentences2001See Kendall v. Malcolm, 98 Ariz. 329 , 404 P.2d 414 (1965); Paddock v. Brisbois, 35 Ariz. 214 , 276 P. 325 (1929). 2001See Kendall v. Malcolm, 98 Ariz. 329 , 404 P.2d 414 (1965); Paddock v. Brisbois, 35 Ariz. 214 , 276 P. 325 (1929). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hernandez v. ST. EX REL. ARIZ. DEPT. OF ECON. SEC.
green
2 sentences1982Arizona Dept. of Economic Security, 23 Ariz.App. 32 , 530 P.2d 389 (1975), and remanding the case to juvenile court for compliance with the statute. 1982Arizona Dept. of Economic Security, 23 Ariz.App. 32 , 530 P.2d 389 (1975), and remanding the case to juvenile court for compliance with the statute. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Garcia v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1980They point to the fact that Dr. Morgan, and also the hearing officer in adopting the opinion of Dr. Morgan as to a five percent impairment rating of claimant’s thumb, made no reference to any rating guide, and that the findings of the hearing officer thereby failed to address a material issue as required by Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz.App. 313 , 548 P.2d 26 (1976). 1980They point to the fact that Dr. Morgan, and also the hearing officer in adopting the opinion of Dr. Morgan as to a five percent impairment rating of claimant’s thumb, made no reference to any rating guide, and that the findings of the hearing officer thereby failed to address a material issue as required by Garcia v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz.App. 313 , 548 P.2d 26 (1976). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Bragg v. Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences1978The credibility of the petitioner was obviously a matter for the hearing officer’s consideration, Bragg v. Industria/ Commission, 71 Ariz. 37 , 223 P.2d 180 (1950), and it is to be presumed that he deliberated upon the subject of the felony conviction. 1978The credibility of the petitioner was obviously a matter for the hearing officer’s consideration, Bragg v. Industria/ Commission, 71 Ariz. 37 , 223 P.2d 180 (1950), and it is to be presumed that he deliberated upon the subject of the felony conviction. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Micucci v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1976Applying these principles, and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the findings of the hearing officer, Micucci v. Industrial Commission, 108 Ariz. 194 , 494 P.2d 1324 (1972), we find adequate support for the hearing officer’s finding that Cheatham’s condition was stationary. 1976Applying these principles, and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the findings of the hearing officer, Micucci v. Industrial Commission, 108 Ariz. 194 , 494 P.2d 1324 (1972), we find adequate support for the hearing officer’s finding that Cheatham’s condition was stationary. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Fidler v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1974Fidler v. Industrial Commission, 72 Ariz. 250 , 233 P.2d 457 (1951); and Merrill v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz. App. 564 , 466 P.2d 783 (1970). 1974Fidler v. Industrial Commission, 72 Ariz. 250 , 233 P.2d 457 (1951); and Merrill v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz. App. 564 , 466 P.2d 783 (1970). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Merrill v. Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences1974Fidler v. Industrial Commission, 72 Ariz. 250 , 233 P.2d 457 (1951); and Merrill v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz. App. 564 , 466 P.2d 783 (1970). 1974Fidler v. Industrial Commission, 72 Ariz. 250 , 233 P.2d 457 (1951); and Merrill v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz. App. 564 , 466 P.2d 783 (1970). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.