18 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2019 0 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. Taltongreen2 sentences1994State v. Talton, 153 Ariz. 433, 435 , 737 P.2d 409, 411 (App.1987). 1994State v. Talton, 153 Ariz. 433, 435 , 737 P.2d 409, 411 (App.1987). | 1 | 2 |
Ah v. Super. Ct. in and for Mohave Cty.green1 sentence2019Id. at 629. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bilkegreen2 sentences2015One of the requirements for a claim of newly discovered evidence is that “the evidence must appear on its face to have existed at the time of trial but be discovered after trial.” State v. Bilke, 162 Ariz. 51, 52 , 781 P.2d 28, 29 (1989). 2015One of the requirements for a claim of newly discovered evidence is that “the evidence must appear on its face to have existed at the time of trial but be discovered after trial.” State v. Bilke, 162 Ariz. 51, 52 , 781 P.2d 28, 29 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
National Bank of Arizona v. Thrustongreen2 sentences2015Thruston, 218 Ariz. at 119, ¶ 28 , 180 P.3d at 984 . 2015Thruston, 218 Ariz. at 119, ¶ 28 , 180 P.3d at 984 . | 1 | 1 |
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturinggreen2 sentences2014Although such clauses could be reasonably read as impliedly waiving the defense of mitigation of damages, see Data *289 Sales Co., 205 Ariz. 594, ¶ 27 , 74 P.3d at 274 (surety defenses can be impliedly waived within guaranty), having already found express waiver, we need not reach that issue. 7 ¶ 16 And because the Williamsons expressly waived their defense of mitigation of damages, we need not address our 1980 decision, Universal Inv. 2014Although such clauses could be reasonably read as impliedly waiving the defense of mitigation of damages, see Data *289 Sales Co., 205 Ariz. 594, ¶ 27 , 74 P.3d at 274 (surety defenses can be impliedly waived within guaranty), having already found express waiver, we need not reach that issue. 7 ¶ 16 And because the Williamsons expressly waived their defense of mitigation of damages, we need not address our 1980 decision, Universal Inv. | 1 | 1 |
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co.green2 sentences2013Because CLA was the breaching party, CLA “ha[d] the burden of proving that mitigation was reasonably possible but not reasonably attempted.” Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., 124 Ariz. 242, 255-56 , 603 P.2d 513, 526-27 (App.1979) (applying the mitigation doctrine to a construction contract and holding, as a matter of law, that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proof on mitigation). ¶ 14 To support its summary judgment motion, Next Gen submitted the affidavit of Pamela Johns (“Johns”), which included a spreadsheet detailing her calculation of $144,899.06 in damages. 2013Because CLA was the breaching party, CLA “ha[d] the burden of proving that mitigation was reasonably possible but not reasonably attempted.” Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., 124 Ariz. 242, 255-56 , 603 P.2d 513, 526-27 (App.1979) (applying the mitigation doctrine to a construction contract and holding, as a matter of law, that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proof on mitigation). ¶ 14 To support its summary judgment motion, Next Gen submitted the affidavit of Pamela Johns (“Johns”), which included a spreadsheet detailing her calculation of $144,899.06 in damages. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Steffygreen2 sentences1999See Steffy, 173 Ariz. at 93 , 839 P.2d at 1138 (finding waiver when defendant failed to object to the amount of restitution or request a restitution hearing and specifically waived a mitigation hearing). 1999See Steffy, 173 Ariz. at 93 , 839 P.2d at 1138 (finding waiver when defendant failed to object to the amount of restitution or request a restitution hearing and specifically waived a mitigation hearing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wallacegreen2 sentences1998See State v. Wallace, 160 Ariz. 424, 427 , 773 P.2d 983, 986 (1989). ¶ 70 No direct evidence was presented at the mitigation hearing to support a causal connection between the defendant’s abusive childhood and the murder. 1998See State v. Wallace, 160 Ariz. 424, 427 , 773 P.2d 983, 986 (1989). ¶ 70 No direct evidence was presented at the mitigation hearing to support a causal connection between the defendant’s abusive childhood and the murder. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tisongreen2 sentences1983In State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 592 , 633 P.2d 335, 351 (1981), appellant’s statements appearing in a psychological evaluation offered in evidence at the mitigation hearing established that the whole purpose of the murders was to obtain an automobile. 1983In State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 592 , 633 P.2d 335, 351 (1981), appellant’s statements appearing in a psychological evaluation offered in evidence at the mitigation hearing established that the whole purpose of the murders was to obtain an automobile. | 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. Asbury
green
2 sentences2005We held that "[the] right to a *372 presentence mitigation hearing is an absolute right, and the only limitation as to timeliness is that it must be requested prior to sentencing." Asbury, 145 Ariz. at 385 , 701 P.2d at 1193 . 2005We held that "[the] right to a *372 presentence mitigation hearing is an absolute right, and the only limitation as to timeliness is that it must be requested prior to sentencing." Asbury, 145 Ariz. at 385 , 701 P.2d at 1193 . | 2 | 1988–2005 |
State v. Fancher
green
1 sentence2019Fancher, 169 Ariz. at 268 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2005He also contends the trial court erred by denying his request for a mitigation hearing and that his aggravated sentences must be vacated in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). 2005He also contends the trial court erred by denying his request for a mitigation hearing and that his aggravated sentences must be vacated in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Grell
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 62, ¶ ¶ 31-35, 66 P.3d at 1239 ; see A.R.S. § 13-703.02(K)(2). 2003Id. at 62, ¶¶ 31-35, 66 P.3d at 1239 ; see A.R.S. § 13-703.02(K)(2). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Lang
green
2 sentences1996The trial judge sealed the reports and transferred the motion to another judge, who granted it in part, relying on People v. Lang, 49 Cal.3d 991 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 782 P.2d 627 (1989) (finding no ineffective assistance where trial counsel agrees to defendant’s request not to call his grandmother in mitigation hearing, reasoning that client has the final say), 7 cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 224 , 112 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). 1996The trial judge sealed the reports and transferred the motion to another judge, who granted it in part, relying on People v. Lang, 49 Cal.3d 991 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 782 P.2d 627 (1989) (finding no ineffective assistance where trial counsel agrees to defendant’s request not to call his grandmother in mitigation hearing, reasoning that client has the final say), 7 cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 224 , 112 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Deboue v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence1996The trial judge sealed the reports and transferred the motion to another judge, who granted it in part, relying on People v. Lang, 49 Cal.3d 991 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 782 P.2d 627 (1989) (finding no ineffective assistance where trial counsel agrees to defendant’s request not to call his grandmother in mitigation hearing, reasoning that client has the final say), 7 cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 224 , 112 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
2 sentences1987Although the issue was not raised by appellant as a matter of constitutional law, we find that she was entitled to a mitigation hearing before revocation based on the holdings in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). 1987Although the issue was not raised by appellant as a matter of constitutional law, we find that she was entitled to a mitigation hearing before revocation based on the holdings in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Black v. Romano
green
2 sentences1987Although the issue was not raised by appellant as a matter of constitutional law, we find that she was entitled to a mitigation hearing before revocation based on the holdings in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). 1987Although the issue was not raised by appellant as a matter of constitutional law, we find that she was entitled to a mitigation hearing before revocation based on the holdings in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Masters
green
2 sentences1975We said in State v. Masters, 108 Ariz. 189 , 494 P.2d 1319 (1972): “This court has consistently held that the trial court has wide discretion in the pronouncement of a sentence and that we will uphold a sentence if it is within the statutory limits, unless the sentence under the circumstances is so clearly excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion [citations omitted].” 108 Ariz. at 191, 494 P.2d at 1321. 1975We said in State v. Masters, 108 Ariz. 189 , 494 P.2d 1319 (1972): “This court has consistently held that the trial court has wide discretion in the pronouncement of a sentence and that we will uphold a sentence if it is within the statutory limits, unless the sentence under the circumstances is so clearly excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion [citations omitted].” 108 Ariz. at 191, 494 P.2d at 1321. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Purvis
green
2 sentences1975Defendant’s reliance on People v. Purvis, 52 Cal.2d 871 , 346 P.2d 22 (1959) is also misplaced. 1975Defendant’s reliance on People v. Purvis, 52 Cal.2d 871 , 346 P.2d 22 (1959) is also misplaced. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Griswold
green
2 sentences1974Notice of appeal was filed and Griswold’s conviction was upheld by this court in State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 (1967), cert. den. 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 . 1974Notice of appeal was filed and Griswold’s conviction was upheld by this court in State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 (1967), cert. den. 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Warn v. Brooks-Scanlon, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1974Notice of appeal was filed and Griswold’s conviction was upheld by this court in State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 (1967), cert. den. 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Aiello v. New Jersey
green
1 sentence1974Notice of appeal was filed and Griswold’s conviction was upheld by this court in State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577 , 422 P.2d 693 (1967), cert. den. 388 U.S. 913 , 87 S.Ct. 2113 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Boykin v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1972Three questions are presented on appeal: (1) Did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a mitigation hearing and again for denying defendant’s motion to vacate sentence, (2) was the sentence of the court excessive, and (3) was defendant’s pica valid under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). 1972Three questions are presented on appeal: (1) Did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a mitigation hearing and again for denying defendant’s motion to vacate sentence, (2) was the sentence of the court excessive, and (3) was defendant’s pica valid under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.