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.
16 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valleygreen1 sentence2020Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley, 163 Ariz. 571, 574 (App. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriquezgreen2 sentences2016Cf. State v. Rodriguez, 25 Ariz. App. 111, 113-14 , 541 P.2d 574, 576-77 (App. 1975) (stating that the defendant’s plea was valid where the court engaged in an oral colloquy with him regarding the voluntariness of his plea); State v. Baker, 217 Ariz. 118, 121, ¶ 15 , 170 P.3d 727, 730 (App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s waiver of his jury trial right was invalid where the transcript did not contain a discussion of waiver or show the court had a personal colloquy with the defendant). ¶18 Although Father argues that he “was in a catch-22 because, in order to address the court regarding pla 2016Cf. State v. Rodriguez, 25 Ariz. App. 111, 113-14 , 541 P.2d 574, 576-77 (App. 1975) (stating that the defendant’s plea was valid where the court engaged in an oral colloquy with him regarding the voluntariness of his plea); State v. Baker, 217 Ariz. 118, 121, ¶ 15 , 170 P.3d 727, 730 (App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s waiver of his jury trial right was invalid where the transcript did not contain a discussion of waiver or show the court had a personal colloquy with the defendant). ¶18 Although Father argues that he “was in a catch-22 because, in order to address the court regarding pla | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bakergreen2 sentences2016Cf. State v. Rodriguez, 25 Ariz. App. 111, 113-14 , 541 P.2d 574, 576-77 (App. 1975) (stating that the defendant’s plea was valid where the court engaged in an oral colloquy with him regarding the voluntariness of his plea); State v. Baker, 217 Ariz. 118, 121, ¶ 15 , 170 P.3d 727, 730 (App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s waiver of his jury trial right was invalid where the transcript did not contain a discussion of waiver or show the court had a personal colloquy with the defendant). ¶18 Although Father argues that he “was in a catch-22 because, in order to address the court regarding pla 2016Cf. State v. Rodriguez, 25 Ariz. App. 111, 113-14 , 541 P.2d 574, 576-77 (App. 1975) (stating that the defendant’s plea was valid where the court engaged in an oral colloquy with him regarding the voluntariness of his plea); State v. Baker, 217 Ariz. 118, 121, ¶ 15 , 170 P.3d 727, 730 (App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s waiver of his jury trial right was invalid where the transcript did not contain a discussion of waiver or show the court had a personal colloquy with the defendant). ¶18 Although Father argues that he “was in a catch-22 because, in order to address the court regarding pla | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gantgreen2 sentences2007See Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228 (2007) (providing a recent discussion of factors to consider in determining whether a duty in a negligence case is present). [12] The majority also cites for support to the Arizona Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Gant, 216 Ariz. 1 , 162 P.3d 640 (Ariz.2007). 2007See Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228 (2007) (providing a recent discussion of factors to consider in determining whether a duty in a negligence case is present). [12] The majority also cites for support to the Arizona Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Gant, 216 Ariz. 1 , 162 P.3d 640 (Ariz.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Gipson v. Kaseygreen2 sentences2007See Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228 (2007) (providing a recent discussion of factors to consider in determining whether a duty in a negligence case is present). [12] The majority also cites for support to the Arizona Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Gant, 216 Ariz. 1 , 162 P.3d 640 (Ariz.2007). 2007See Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228 (2007) (providing a recent discussion of factors to consider in determining whether a duty in a negligence case is present). [12] The majority also cites for support to the Arizona Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Gant, 216 Ariz. 1 , 162 P.3d 640 (Ariz.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp.green2 sentences1999See, e.g., Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp., 184 Ariz. 332, 334 , 909 P.2d 399, 401 (App.1995). ¶ 12 While the defendants were in possession of the facts giving rise to the limitations defense from the outset, as the discussion of that defense which follows shows, the defense was not obvious because the law on point was not clearly established. 1999See, e.g., Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp., 184 Ariz. 332, 334 , 909 P.2d 399, 401 (App.1995). ¶ 12 While the defendants were in possession of the facts giving rise to the limitations defense from the outset, as the discussion of that defense which follows shows, the defense was not obvious because the law on point was not clearly established. | 1 | 1 |
Carlson v. Pima Countygreen2 sentences1997The Presumption of Disclosure The Public Records Law “evince[s] a clear policy favoring disclosure.” Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487, 490 , 687 P.2d 1242, 1245 (1984). 1997The Presumption of Disclosure The Public Records Law “evince[s] a clear policy favoring disclosure.” Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487, 490 , 687 P.2d 1242, 1245 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Kromko v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1993A.R.S. § 19-122(C); Kromko v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 51, 57 , 811 P.2d 12, 18 (1991). 1993A.R.S. § 19-122(C); Kromko v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 51, 57 , 811 P.2d 12, 18 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Albrechtgreen2 sentences1991State v. Albrecht, 158 Ariz. 341, 343 , 762 P.2d 628, 630 (App.1988). 1991State v. Albrecht, 158 Ariz. 341, 343 , 762 P.2d 628, 630 (App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of McCauleygreen2 sentences1969See In re O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. 248, 260 , 246 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1952); In re Pitt’s Estate, 88 Ariz. 312, 317 , 356 P.2d 408, 411 (1960); In re Estate of McCauley, 101 Ariz. 8, 11 , 415 P.2d 431, 434 (1966); In re Estate of Harber, 102 Ariz. 285, 289 , 428 P.2d 662, 666 (1967). 1969See In re O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. 248, 260 , 246 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1952); In re Pitt’s Estate, 88 Ariz. 312, 317 , 356 P.2d 408, 411 (1960); In re Estate of McCauley, 101 Ariz. 8, 11 , 415 P.2d 431, 434 (1966); In re Estate of Harber, 102 Ariz. 285, 289 , 428 P.2d 662, 666 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Harbergreen2 sentences1969See In re O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. 248, 260 , 246 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1952); In re Pitt’s Estate, 88 Ariz. 312, 317 , 356 P.2d 408, 411 (1960); In re Estate of McCauley, 101 Ariz. 8, 11 , 415 P.2d 431, 434 (1966); In re Estate of Harber, 102 Ariz. 285, 289 , 428 P.2d 662, 666 (1967). 1969See In re O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. 248, 260 , 246 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1952); In re Pitt’s Estate, 88 Ariz. 312, 317 , 356 P.2d 408, 411 (1960); In re Estate of McCauley, 101 Ariz. 8, 11 , 415 P.2d 431, 434 (1966); In re Estate of Harber, 102 Ariz. 285, 289 , 428 P.2d 662, 666 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
In Re O'Connor's Estategreen2 sentences1969See In re O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. 248, 260 , 246 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1952); In re Pitt’s Estate, 88 Ariz. 312, 317 , 356 P.2d 408, 411 (1960); In re Estate of McCauley, 101 Ariz. 8, 11 , 415 P.2d 431, 434 (1966); In re Estate of Harber, 102 Ariz. 285, 289 , 428 P.2d 662, 666 (1967). 1969See In re O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. 248, 260 , 246 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1952); In re Pitt’s Estate, 88 Ariz. 312, 317 , 356 P.2d 408, 411 (1960); In re Estate of McCauley, 101 Ariz. 8, 11 , 415 P.2d 431, 434 (1966); In re Estate of Harber, 102 Ariz. 285, 289 , 428 P.2d 662, 666 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Pitt's Estategreen2 sentences1969See In re O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. 248, 260 , 246 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1952); In re Pitt’s Estate, 88 Ariz. 312, 317 , 356 P.2d 408, 411 (1960); In re Estate of McCauley, 101 Ariz. 8, 11 , 415 P.2d 431, 434 (1966); In re Estate of Harber, 102 Ariz. 285, 289 , 428 P.2d 662, 666 (1967). 1969See In re O’Connor’s Estate, 74 Ariz. 248, 260 , 246 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1952); In re Pitt’s Estate, 88 Ariz. 312, 317 , 356 P.2d 408, 411 (1960); In re Estate of McCauley, 101 Ariz. 8, 11 , 415 P.2d 431, 434 (1966); In re Estate of Harber, 102 Ariz. 285, 289 , 428 P.2d 662, 666 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Paul A. Bilzerian
green
2 sentences2000Bilzerian, 926 F.2d at 1294 . . 2000Bilzerian, 926 F.2d at 1294 . [7] We have also considered the view of amici. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Blum v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
green
2 sentences1996Blum v. State, 171 Ariz. 201 , 829 P.2d 1247 (App.1992). 1996Blum v. State, 171 Ariz. 201 , 829 P.2d 1247 (App.1992). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Pearson v. MOTOR VEH., DEPT. OF TRANSP.
green
2 sentences1995DISCUSSION This issue recently was resolved in Pearson v. Motor Vehicle Division, 181 Ariz. 235 , 889 P.2d 28 (App.1995). 1995DISCUSSION This issue recently was resolved in Pearson v. Motor Vehicle Division, 181 Ariz. 235 , 889 P.2d 28 (App.1995). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences1989See Rule 31.11, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; State v. Ferguson, 119 Ariz. 55 , 579 P.2d 559 (1978). 1989See Rule 31.11, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; State v. Ferguson, 119 Ariz. 55 , 579 P.2d 559 (1978). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Baker
neutral
2 sentences1970In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346 , 429 P.2d 665 (1967) ; In re Greer, 52 Ariz. 385 , 81 P.2d 96 (1938). 1970In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346 , 429 P.2d 665 (1967) ; In re Greer, 52 Ariz. 385 , 81 P.2d 96 (1938). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
In Re Greer
green
2 sentences1970In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346 , 429 P.2d 665 (1967) ; In re Greer, 52 Ariz. 385 , 81 P.2d 96 (1938). 1970In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346 , 429 P.2d 665 (1967) ; In re Greer, 52 Ariz. 385 , 81 P.2d 96 (1938). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc.
green
2 sentences1965A discussion of this rule is found in the case of Stevens v. Mehagian’s Home Furnishings, Inc., 90 Ariz. 42 , 365 P.2d 208 (1961). 1965A discussion of this rule is found in the case of Stevens v. Mehagian’s Home Furnishings, Inc., 90 Ariz. 42 , 365 P.2d 208 (1961). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Williams
neutral
2 sentences1952Bank, 170 Va. 221 , 196 S.E. 593 ; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Williams, 268 Ky. 671 , 105 S.W.2d 814 ; and City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Miller, 278 N.Y. 134 , 15 N.E.2d 553 . 1952Bank, 170 Va. 221 , 196 S.E. 593 ; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Williams, 268 Ky. 671 , 105 S.W.2d 814 ; and City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Miller, 278 N.Y. 134 , 15 N.E.2d 553 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
City Bank Farmers Trust Company v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences1952Bank, 170 Va. 221 , 196 S.E. 593 ; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Williams, 268 Ky. 671 , 105 S.W.2d 814 ; and City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Miller, 278 N.Y. 134 , 15 N.E.2d 553 . 1952Bank, 170 Va. 221 , 196 S.E. 593 ; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Williams, 268 Ky. 671 , 105 S.W.2d 814 ; and City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Miller, 278 N.Y. 134 , 15 N.E.2d 553 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Stephens v. Moore
green
2 sentences1952A discussion of the rule is found in Scott on Trusts in Volume 1, page 657, section 127.1; the same rule is discussed in Burton v. Boren, 308 Ill. 4 -40, 139 N.E. 868 ; Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215 , 249 S.W. 601 ; Bottimore v. First & Merchants Nat. 1952A discussion of the rule is found in Scott on Trusts in Volume 1, page 657, section 127.1; the same rule is discussed in Burton v. Boren, 308 Ill. 4 -40, 139 N.E. 868 ; Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215 , 249 S.W. 601 ; Bottimore v. First & Merchants Nat. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Burton v. Boren
green
1 sentence1952A discussion of the rule is found in Scott on Trusts in Volume 1, page 657, section 127.1; the same rule is discussed in Burton v. Boren, 308 Ill. 4 -40, 139 N.E. 868 ; Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215 , 249 S.W. 601 ; Bottimore v. First & Merchants Nat. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Bottimore v. First & Merchants National Bank
green
2 sentences1952Bank, 170 Va. 221 , 196 S.E. 593 ; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Williams, 268 Ky. 671 , 105 S.W.2d 814 ; and City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Miller, 278 N.Y. 134 , 15 N.E.2d 553 . 1952Bank, 170 Va. 221 , 196 S.E. 593 ; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Williams, 268 Ky. 671 , 105 S.W.2d 814 ; and City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Miller, 278 N.Y. 134 , 15 N.E.2d 553 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Swift v. Tyson
red
1 sentence1916In Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 19 , 10 L. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.