18 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Reinsteingreen2 sentences2003In order to show a substantive due process violation, the abuse of governmental power must be one that “shocks the conscience.” United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 401 (3rd Cir.2003) (holding that in the land-use context, substantive due process is violated only when government action “shocks the conscience”); cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (in context of search and seizure, substantive due process is violated only when the government’s action shocks the conscience in a constitutional sense); 2003In order to show a substantive due process violation, the abuse of governmental power must be one that “shocks the conscience.” United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 401 (3rd Cir.2003) (holding that in the land-use context, substantive due process is violated only when government action “shocks the conscience”); cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (in context of search and seizure, substantive due process is violated only when the government’s action shocks the conscience in a constitutional sense); | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Salernogreen2 sentences2017See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747-48 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 . ¶ 14 In Salerno , the Court upheld the Bail Reform Act of 1984 against a substantive due process challenge. 481 U.S. at 747 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 . 2017See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747-48 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 . ¶ 14 In Salerno , the Court upheld the Bail Reform Act of 1984 against a substantive due process challenge. 481 U.S. at 747 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 . | 2 | 2 |
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucsongreen2 sentences2003In order to show a substantive due process violation, the abuse of governmental power must be one that “shocks the conscience.” United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 401 (3rd Cir.2003) (holding that in the land-use context, substantive due process is violated only when government action “shocks the conscience”); cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (in context of search and seizure, substantive due process is violated only when the government’s action shocks the conscience in a constitutional sense); 2003In order to show a substantive due process violation, the abuse of governmental power must be one that “shocks the conscience.” United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 401 (3rd Cir.2003) (holding that in the land-use context, substantive due process is violated only when government action “shocks the conscience”); cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (in context of search and seizure, substantive due process is violated only when the government’s action shocks the conscience in a constitutional sense); | 2 | 2 |
United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. The Township Of Warrington, Pagreen2 sentences2003In order to show a substantive due process violation, the abuse of governmental power must be one that “shocks the conscience.” United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 401 (3rd Cir.2003) (holding that in the land-use context, substantive due process is violated only when government action “shocks the conscience”); cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (in context of search and seizure, substantive due process is violated only when the government’s action shocks the conscience in a constitutional sense); 2003In order to show a substantive due process violation, the abuse of governmental power must be one that “shocks the conscience.” United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 401 (3rd Cir. 2003) (holding that in the land-use context, substantive due process is violated only when government action “shocks the conscience”); cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 118 S. Ct. 1708 , 140 L. | 2 | 2 |
County of Sacramento v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2011See Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (stating that "criteria to identify what is fatally arbitrary differ depending on whether [challenged government action] is legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer” and applying shock-the-conscience test to latter category); Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 738-39 (4th Cir.1999) (holding shock-the-conscience inquiry made only in substantive due process challenge to an executive act and is not used in facial or as applied challenge to legislative enactment); Dias v. City and Cnty. of 2011See Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (stating that "criteria to identify what is fatally arbitrary differ depending on whether [challenged government action] is legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer” and applying shock-the-conscience test to latter category); Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 738-39 (4th Cir.1999) (holding shock-the-conscience inquiry made only in substantive due process challenge to an executive act and is not used in facial or as applied challenge to legislative enactment); Dias v. City and Cnty. of | 1 | 3 |
Alpha, LLC v. Darttgreen1 sentence2023Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 206 Ariz. 557 , 568, ¶ 44 (App. 2003); accord Alpha, LLC v. Dartt, 232 Ariz. 303, 308, ¶ 23 (App. 2013). 2 See Ariz. R. | 1 | 1 |
Moran v. Clarkegreen1 sentence2012The dissent criticized the majority's holding, stating it was "contrary to controlling Supreme Court precedent” set forth in Albright, where “no fewer than seven justices agreed, though on different grounds, that a substantive due process claim will not lie for 'prosecution without probable cause.’ ” Moran, 296 F.3d at 653 (Loken, J., dissenting). . | 1 | 1 |
Dias v. City and County of Denvergreen1 sentence2011See Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (stating that "criteria to identify what is fatally arbitrary differ depending on whether [challenged government action] is legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer” and applying shock-the-conscience test to latter category); Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 738-39 (4th Cir.1999) (holding shock-the-conscience inquiry made only in substantive due process challenge to an executive act and is not used in facial or as applied challenge to legislative enactment); Dias v. City and Cnty. of | 1 | 1 |
Irving Houston Hawkins v. Franklin Freemangreen1 sentence2011See Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (stating that "criteria to identify what is fatally arbitrary differ depending on whether [challenged government action] is legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer” and applying shock-the-conscience test to latter category); Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 738-39 (4th Cir.1999) (holding shock-the-conscience inquiry made only in substantive due process challenge to an executive act and is not used in facial or as applied challenge to legislative enactment); Dias v. City and Cnty. of | 1 | 1 |
United States v. William W. Lillygreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., United States v. Lilly, 983 F.2d 300, 309 (1st Cir.1992) (A substantive due-process violation "occurs when government conduct violates ‘fundamental fairness’ and is ‘shocking to the universal sense of justice.’ ”) (Quoting Kinsella v. United States ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Countygreen2 sentences2003See Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 75 , 887 P.2d 599, 605 (App.1994) (recognizing freedom to move as fundamental right “rooted in our ... state constitutional protections of fundamental liberty interests under the doctrine of substantive due process”); Edwards v. State Bd. of Barber Exam’rs, 72 Ariz. 108, 111 , 231 P.2d 450, 451 (1951) (stating Arizona’s due process *281 provision a corollary to federal Due Process Clause). 2003See Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 75 , 887 P.2d 599, 605 (App.1994) (recognizing freedom to move as fundamental right “rooted in our ... state constitutional protections of fundamental liberty interests under the doctrine of substantive due process”); Edwards v. State Bd. of Barber Exam’rs, 72 Ariz. 108, 111 , 231 P.2d 450, 451 (1951) (stating Arizona’s due process *281 provision a corollary to federal Due Process Clause). | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. State Board of Barber Examinersgreen2 sentences2003See Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 75 , 887 P.2d 599, 605 (App.1994) (recognizing freedom to move as fundamental right “rooted in our ... state constitutional protections of fundamental liberty interests under the doctrine of substantive due process”); Edwards v. State Bd. of Barber Exam’rs, 72 Ariz. 108, 111 , 231 P.2d 450, 451 (1951) (stating Arizona’s due process *281 provision a corollary to federal Due Process Clause). 2003See Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 75 , 887 P.2d 599, 605 (App.1994) (recognizing freedom to move as fundamental right “rooted in our ... state constitutional protections of fundamental liberty interests under the doctrine of substantive due process”); Edwards v. State Bd. of Barber Exam’rs, 72 Ariz. 108, 111 , 231 P.2d 450, 451 (1951) (stating Arizona’s due process *281 provision a corollary to federal Due Process Clause). | 1 | 1 |
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences1999Id. at 200 , 109 S.Ct. at 1005-06 , 103 L.Ed.2d at 261-62 (citations omitted). ¶ 15 Plaintiff asserts that the custodial exception applies here because the Casa Grande Police Department took custody of Perez by arresting, transporting, and confining her against her will. 1999Id. at 200 , 109 S.Ct. at 1005-06 , 103 L.Ed.2d at 261-62 (citations omitted). ¶ 15 Plaintiff asserts that the custodial exception applies here because the Casa Grande Police Department took custody of Perez by arresting, transporting, and confining her against her will. | 1 | 1 |
Zinermon v. Burchgreen2 sentences1991See Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 125 , 110 S.Ct. at 983 . 1991See Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 125 , 110 S.Ct. at 983 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Maranagreen2 sentences2023Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 206 Ariz. 557 , 568, ¶ 44 (App. 2003); accord Alpha, LLC v. Dartt, 232 Ariz. 303, 308, ¶ 23 (App. 2013). 2 See Ariz. R. 2011Instead, it is an inquiry reserved for cases challenging executive action.”); but see Aegis, 206 Ariz. at 568, 569, ¶¶ 43, 46, 81 P.3d at 1027, 1028 (characterizing town council's refusal to issue a special use permit as a legislative function and later stating that shock-the-conscience inquiry must be used to assess § 1983 claim that council deprived applicant of substantive due process). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrison v. Jones
green
2 sentences2010In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir.1984), which also involved a fatal shooting by police, as well as Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir.1979), and its progeny. 2010In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984), which also involved a fatal shooting by police, as well as Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1979), and its progeny. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
cluster 443256
green
2 sentences2010In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir.1984), which also involved a fatal shooting by police, as well as Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir.1979), and its progeny. 2010In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984), which also involved a fatal shooting by police, as well as Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1979), and its progeny. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Leon G.
green
2 sentences2008Citing Leon G., Jaramillo also argues that applying Rule 404(c) is consistent with the substantive due process requirement that Arizona’s SVP statutes "must impose proper procedures and evidentiary standards.” Leon G., 204 Ariz. 15, ¶ 8 , 59 P.3d at 783 . 2008Citing Leon G., Jaramillo also argues that applying Rule 404(c) is consistent with the substantive due process requirement that Arizona’s SVP statutes "must impose proper procedures and evidentiary standards.” Leon G., 204 Ariz. 15, ¶ 8 , 59 P.3d at 783 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Scales v. United States
green
1 sentence2020Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 , 224–25 (1961). ¶12 In Scales, the defendant was charged under the Smith Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 , which criminalized “the acquisition or holding of knowing membership in any organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence.” Id. at 205–06. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
George Jones, Cross-Appellant v. City of Chicago, Cross-Appellees
green
1 sentence2012Yanes’ citation to Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir.1988) is also not relevant to our analysis since it was decided in 1988, six years before Albright. . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Simpson v. Owens
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kinsella v. United States Ex Rel. Singleton
green
2 sentences2005Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 246 , 80 S.Ct. 297 , 4 *308 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960)); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 , 100 S.Ct. 1610 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980) (The right to procedural due process "entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases,” one that "preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, 'generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done.' ”) (Quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ). 4 . 2005Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 246 , 80 S.Ct. 297 , 4 *308 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960)); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 , 100 S.Ct. 1610 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980) (The right to procedural due process "entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases,” one that "preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, 'generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done.' ”) (Quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ). 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
green
2 sentences2005Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 246 , 80 S.Ct. 297 , 4 *308 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960)); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 , 100 S.Ct. 1610 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980) (The right to procedural due process "entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases,” one that "preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, 'generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done.' ”) (Quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ). 4 . 2005Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 246 , 80 S.Ct. 297 , 4 *308 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960)); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 , 100 S.Ct. 1610 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980) (The right to procedural due process "entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases,” one that "preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, 'generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done.' ”) (Quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ). 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 246 , 80 S.Ct. 297 , 4 *308 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960)); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 , 100 S.Ct. 1610 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980) (The right to procedural due process "entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases,” one that "preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, 'generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done.' ”) (Quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ). 4 . 2005Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 246 , 80 S.Ct. 297 , 4 *308 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960)); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 , 100 S.Ct. 1610 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980) (The right to procedural due process "entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases,” one that "preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, 'generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done.' ”) (Quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ). 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.