17 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parkergreen2 sentences2024State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, 405, ¶ 61 (2013) (citations omitted). ¶14 Faria next argues the court’s findings were inconsistent with the evidence. 2023See State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, ¶ 61 (2013) (finding a party precluded from challenging admissibility of evidence on appeal after stipulating to its admission). ¶23 But the trial court did not err, fundamentally or otherwise, by receiving the transcript into evidence. | 3 | 3 |
Ray v. Mangumgreen2 sentences2021Ray v. Mangum, 163 Ariz. 329, 333 (1989). 2018Ray v. Mangum, 163 Ariz. 329, 333 (1989). ¶15 Husband left Wife a voicemail in January 2014 stating he instructed his attorney “to get that garnishment on hold”3 and he was going to “hold off on the garnishment” for his spousal maintenance payments. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Diezsigreen2 sentences2018See In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 525, ¶ 2 (App. 2002). 2 HALLOUM v. HASASNEH Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶5 Wife argues no evidence showed she either committed or will commit an act of domestic violence against Husband. 2013See In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, ¶ 2 , 38 P.3d 1189, 1190 (App. 2002). 2 . | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Graygreen1 sentence2017Gray, 239 Ariz. at 477, ¶ 8 (explaining a defendant “who wishes to avail himself of a defense of entrapment” may not deny “knowledge of the crime”). ¶24 Young was charged with knowingly selling marijuana, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13–3401(32) and 13-3405. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Traceygreen2 sentences2016Thus the differences between plea bargains and the condition here are of constitutional magnitude. 3 Indeed, in overturning the admission requirement for an entrapment defense in Demma, 523 F.2d at 986 , the Ninth Circuit remarked that continued adherence to the admission requirement “would have generated serious constitutional problems by conditioning the assertion of a defense on the defendant’s yielding his presumption of innocence, his right to remain silent, and his right to have the Government prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” See also Commonwealth v. Tracey, 41 2016Thus the differences between plea bargains and the condition here are of constitutional magnitude. 3 Indeed, in overturning the admission requirement for an entrapment defense in Demma, 523 F.2d at 986 , the Ninth Circuit remarked that continued adherence to the admission requirement “would have generated serious constitutional problems by conditioning the assertion of a defense on the defendant’s yielding his presumption of innocence, his right to remain silent, and his right to have the Government prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” See also Commonwealth v. Tracey, 41 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riveragreen1 sentence2015State v. Rivera, 116 Ariz. 449, 452 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliottgreen2 sentences2015To comply with the findings and conclusions requirement, “[i]t must be clear” from the record how the court “arrive[d] at its conclusions.” Elliot v. Elliot, 165 Ariz. 128, 135 , 796 P.2d 930, 937 (App. 1990) (citation omitted). ¶8 Contrary to Father’s argument, the superior court made sufficient findings of fact in its March 19, 2014 minute entry and it is clear from those findings how the court arrived at its conclusions of law. 2015To comply with the findings and conclusions requirement, “[i]t must be clear” from the record how the court “arrive[d] at its conclusions.” Elliot v. Elliot, 165 Ariz. 128, 135 , 796 P.2d 930, 937 (App. 1990) (citation omitted). ¶8 Contrary to Father’s argument, the superior court made sufficient findings of fact in its March 19, 2014 minute entry and it is clear from those findings how the court arrived at its conclusions of law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
2 sentences1983They concede that the statute is "per se" in nature and creates no presumption; they argue that the admission of test results which may be scientifically inaccurate subjects a defendant to "conviction by machine" despite the fact that the test results do not necessarily indicate the true blood-alcohol level of the test subject. [3] The amici contend that allowing a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of test results which, according to the weight of scientific evidence, are subject to considerable inaccuracy, violates the rule of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct 1983They concede that the statute is "per se" in nature and creates no presumption; they argue that the admission of test results which may be scientifically inaccurate subjects a defendant to "conviction by machine" despite the fact that the test results do not necessarily indicate the true blood-alcohol level of the test subject. [3] The amici contend that allowing a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of test results which, according to the weight of scientific evidence, are subject to considerable inaccuracy, violates the rule of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct | 2 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. Anthony J. Demma, United States of America v. Henry Brulay
green
2 sentences2016Thus the differences between plea bargains and the condition here are of constitutional magnitude. 3 Indeed, in overturning the admission requirement for an entrapment defense in Demma, 523 F.2d at 986 , the Ninth Circuit remarked that continued adherence to the admission requirement “would have generated serious constitutional problems by conditioning the assertion of a defense on the defendant’s yielding his presumption of innocence, his right to remain silent, and his right to have the Government prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” See also Commonwealth v. Tracey, 41 2016Thus the differences between plea bargains and the condition here are of constitutional magnitude.3 Indeed, in overturning the admission requirement for an entrapment defense in Demma, 523 F.2d at 986 , the Ninth Circuit remarked that continued adherence to the admission requirement “would have generated serious constitutional problems by conditioning the assertion of a defense on the defendant’s yielding his presumption of innocence, his right to remain silent, and his right to have the Government prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” See also Commonwealth v. Tracey, 624 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Nilsen
green
2 sentences2015Nilsen outlined several methods by which a defendant could satisfy the admission requirement, including testifying, stipulating, or having an admission read into evidence. 134 Ariz. at 432 , 657 P.2d at 420 . 2015Nilsen outlined several methods by which a defendant could satisfy the admission requirement, including testifying, stipulating, or having an admission read into evidence. 134 Ariz. at 432 , 657 P.2d at 420 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Stotts
green
2 sentences1994Every case upon which the court relies, including State v. Stotts, 144 Ariz. 72 , 695 P.2d 1110 (1985), involved a violation hearing at which notice was denied, not an admission proceeding at which notice is admitted. *547 Nor do I understand how an admission exception will encourage wrongful revocation filings. 1994Every case upon which the court relies, including State v. Stotts, 144 Ariz. 72 , 695 P.2d 1110 (1985), involved a violation hearing at which notice was denied, not an admission proceeding at which notice is admitted. *547 Nor do I understand how an admission exception will encourage wrongful revocation filings. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1985Appellant contends the destruction of the sample was a violation of State v. Mitchell, 140 Ariz. 551 , 683 P.2d 750 (App.1984), since the sample was not available for retesting by appellant. 1985Appellant contends the destruction of the sample was a violation of State v. Mitchell, 140 Ariz. 551 , 683 P.2d 750 (App.1984), since the sample was not available for retesting by appellant. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Commonwealth v. McCabe
green
2 sentences1923The above instruction was evidently written with a view of conforming to the suggestions of the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. McCabe, 163 Mass. 98 , 39 N. E. 777 , wherein it was»said, in passing upon an instruction upon the effect of defendant’s silence as an admission that an instruction worded like the above would be “strictly accurate.” It is well-settled law, we think, that: “Where, on being accused of crime, with full liberty to speak, one remains silent, his failure to reply or to deny is relevant as tending to show his guilt; and the accusatory or incriminating statement is 1923The above instruction was evidently written with a view of conforming to the suggestions of the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. McCabe, 163 Mass. 98 , 39 N. E. 777 , wherein it was»said, in passing upon an instruction upon the effect of defendant’s silence as an admission that an instruction worded like the above would be “strictly accurate.” It is well-settled law, we think, that: “Where, on being accused of crime, with full liberty to speak, one remains silent, his failure to reply or to deny is relevant as tending to show his guilt; and the accusatory or incriminating statement is | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.