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 1981–2022 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Bakergreen2 sentences2022As such, “we presume the items not included in the appellate record support [the ALJ’s] ruling.” See Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 495, ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (“An appellant . . . has an obligation to provide transcripts and other documents necessary to consider the issues raised on appeal.”); Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995); ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B). ¶17 Petramala also argues that under the First Amendment, he was free to criticize his VR rehabilitation worker, and thus, ADES’s closure of his VR services was error. 2021See Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995); see also ARCAP 11(c)(1)(A)–(B). | 9 | 9 |
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Burtongreen2 sentences2016Additionally, Mother did not provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing before the family court and, as previously noted, we presume the missing transcript supports the family court’s ruling excluding the video evidence.5 See Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16 , 66 P.3d at 73 . 2016Additionally, Mother did not provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing before the family court and, as previously noted, we presume the missing transcript supports the family court’s ruling excluding the video evidence.5 See Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16 , 66 P.3d at 73 . | 2 | 2 |
Marriage of Kohler v. Kohlergreen2 sentences2018See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106 , 108 n.1 ¶ 8 (App. 2005). 2018Because Husband did not provide the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, we presume the record supports the family court’s ruling.4 See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106 , 108 n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2005). | 1 | 2 |
Myrick v. Maloneygreen1 sentence2022As such, “we presume the items not included in the appellate record support [the ALJ’s] ruling.” See Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 495, ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (“An appellant . . . has an obligation to provide transcripts and other documents necessary to consider the issues raised on appeal.”); Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995); ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B). ¶17 Petramala also argues that under the First Amendment, he was free to criticize his VR rehabilitation worker, and thus, ADES’s closure of his VR services was error. | 1 | 1 |
Blair v. Burgenergreen1 sentence2020“It is the appellant’s burden to ensure that ‘the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised.’ And, in the absence of a transcript, we presume the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing support the trial court’s ruling.” Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 217, ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (quoting Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Fletcher v. Fletchergreen1 sentence2017Fletcher v. Fletcher, 137 Ariz. 497, 498 (App. 1983) (citing Bryant v. Thunderbird Acad., 103 Ariz. 247, 249 (1968)); see also ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B) (requiring the appellant to order and provide transcripts of the trial court proceedings if he intends to argue that a “judgment, finding or conclusion[] is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence”). | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. Thunderbird Academygreen1 sentence2017Fletcher v. Fletcher, 137 Ariz. 497, 498 (App. 1983) (citing Bryant v. Thunderbird Acad., 103 Ariz. 247, 249 (1968)); see also ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B) (requiring the appellant to order and provide transcripts of the trial court proceedings if he intends to argue that a “judgment, finding or conclusion[] is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence”). | 1 | 1 |
Cullison v. City of Peoriagreen2 sentences2016See Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165 , 168 n.2 (1978) (noting, where appellant did not provide the relevant transcript, appellate court is “unable to give any consideration to appellant’s attempt to recite the events which occurred during the course of the preliminary hearing”) (citations omitted); see also ARCAP 11(b) (addressing procedure for transcripts on appeal). “[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” Cullison, 120 Ariz. at 168 n.2; accord Baker v. Baker, 1 2016See Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165 , 168 n.2 (1978) (noting, where appellant did not provide the relevant transcript, appellate court is “unable to give any consideration to appellant’s attempt to recite the events which occurred during the course of the preliminary hearing”) (citations omitted); see also ARCAP 11(b) (addressing procedure for transcripts on appeal). “[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” Cullison, 120 Ariz. at 168 n.2; accord Baker v. Baker, 1 | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen1 sentence2016See Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165 , 168 n.2 (1978) (noting, where appellant did not provide the relevant transcript, appellate court is “unable to give any consideration to appellant’s attempt to recite the events which occurred during the course of the preliminary hearing”) (citations omitted); see also ARCAP 11(b) (addressing procedure for transcripts on appeal). “[W]here an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” Cullison, 120 Ariz. at 168 n.2; accord Baker v. Baker, 1 | 1 | 1 |
Maricopa County v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Maricopa County v. State, 187 Ariz. 275, 281 , 928 P.2d 699, 705 (App. 1996) (“An appellate court will generally not consider an issue on appeal that was not first presented to the trial court for resolution.”). 3 Gillespie-Muldrew v. Muldrew Decision of the Court Mother neglected to provide a certificate of service indicating her opening brief was served on Father, despite the clerk of the appellate court requesting her to do so after the filing of her opening brief. ¶9 Finally, the record Mother has provided does not contain the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, which led to the sup 2014See Maricopa County v. State, 187 Ariz. 275, 281 , 928 P.2d 699, 705 (App. 1996) (“An appellate court will generally not consider an issue on appeal that was not first presented to the trial court for resolution.”). 3 Gillespie-Muldrew v. Muldrew Decision of the Court Mother neglected to provide a certificate of service indicating her opening brief was served on Father, despite the clerk of the appellate court requesting her to do so after the filing of her opening brief. ¶9 Finally, the record Mother has provided does not contain the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, which led to the sup | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Martingreen2 sentences2014See Martin v. Martin, 156 Ariz. 452, 458 , 752 P.2d 1038, 1044 (1988). 1 We must assume that the record supports the superior court’s findings because Husband failed to provide us with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing on Wife’s petition for contempt and modification of the decree. 2014See Martin v. Martin, 156 Ariz. 452, 458 , 752 P.2d 1038, 1044 (1988). 1 We must assume that the record supports the superior court’s findings because Husband failed to provide us with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing on Wife’s petition for contempt and modification of the decree. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McFallgreen2 sentences1987See also State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234 , 439 P.2d 805 (1968). 1987See also State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234 , 439 P.2d 805 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Appeal in Pima County
neutral
2 sentences1981The Court of Appeals, 129 Ariz. 383 , 631 P.2d 538 , reversed and remanded, agreeing with the juvenile “that his adjudication as a delinquent minor was the result of a violation of his constitutional right to due process, because the court made its determination on the basis of a ‘cold’ transcript, rejecting the recommendation of a juvenile court referee who had heard the testimony.” We accepted the state’s petition for review pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.24 and Rule 28, 17A A.R.S., Juvenile Court Rules of Procedure. 1981The Court of Appeals, 129 Ariz. 383 , 631 P.2d 538 , reversed and remanded, agreeing with the juvenile “that his adjudication as a delinquent minor was the result of a violation of his constitutional right to due process, because the court made its determination on the basis of a ‘cold’ transcript, rejecting the recommendation of a juvenile court referee who had heard the testimony.” We accepted the state’s petition for review pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.24 and Rule 28, 17A A.R.S., Juvenile Court Rules of Procedure. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
In the Matter of Lisa M. Aubuchon
green
1 sentence2022ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring arguments on appeal to contain “supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which appellant relies”); In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62 , 64–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (holding that arguments on appeal not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or legal authority are waived). ¶11 Further, though Father contends the court’s order was not supported by and/or was contrary to the evidence, he has not provided this court with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
green
1 sentence2016No. 97, 186 Ariz. 161 , 167 (App. 1996).4 ¶9 Banda also failed to provide this court a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, which constitutes another form of waiver. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.