15 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Arizonagreen1 sentence2022E.g., 18 STATE v. MACHARDY Opinion of the Court Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482-87 (1981) (emphasizing that “voluntariness” of waiver and whether waiver is “knowing and intelligent” are “discrete inquiries” and reversing Arizona Supreme Court for failing to separately consider both aspects of waiver). ¶46 The United States Supreme Court has made it equally clear that, in the context of constitutional waivers, “voluntary” is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning. 9 Voluntariness is not established by a showing that the waiver is volitional or intentional—or that the defendant s | 1 | 1 |
Bram v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2022E.g., 18 STATE v. MACHARDY Opinion of the Court Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482-87 (1981) (emphasizing that “voluntariness” of waiver and whether waiver is “knowing and intelligent” are “discrete inquiries” and reversing Arizona Supreme Court for failing to separately consider both aspects of waiver). ¶46 The United States Supreme Court has made it equally clear that, in the context of constitutional waivers, “voluntary” is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning. 9 Voluntariness is not established by a showing that the waiver is volitional or intentional—or that the defendant s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Poysongreen1 sentence2022State v. Poyson, 198 Ariz. 70, 75, ¶ 10 (2000). ¶9 Valvano has not shown the superior court erred in determining Valvano’s admissions to the victims were voluntary. | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2022E.g., 18 STATE v. MACHARDY Opinion of the Court Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482-87 (1981) (emphasizing that “voluntariness” of waiver and whether waiver is “knowing and intelligent” are “discrete inquiries” and reversing Arizona Supreme Court for failing to separately consider both aspects of waiver). ¶46 The United States Supreme Court has made it equally clear that, in the context of constitutional waivers, “voluntary” is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning. 9 Voluntariness is not established by a showing that the waiver is volitional or intentional—or that the defendant s | 1 | 1 |
Link v. Pima Countygreen1 sentence2020Link v. Pima County, 193 Ariz. 336, 338, ¶ 3 (App. 1998); Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin, 174 Ariz. 484, 487 (App. 1992). ¶7 Dr. Banks addressed kinematics and causation of Gregory’s injuries. | 1 | 1 |
Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlingreen1 sentence2020Link v. Pima County, 193 Ariz. 336, 338, ¶ 3 (App. 1998); Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin, 174 Ariz. 484, 487 (App. 1992). ¶7 Dr. Banks addressed kinematics and causation of Gregory’s injuries. | 1 | 1 |
Grand v. Nacchiogreen2 sentences2017See Simon v. Safeway, Inc., 217 Ariz. 330, ¶ 6 , 173 P.3d 1031, 1034 (App. 2007); Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9, ¶ 72 , 147 P.3d 763, 783 (App. 2006). 2017See Simon v. Safeway, Inc., 217 Ariz. 330, ¶ 6 , 173 P.3d 1031, 1034 (App. 2007); Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9, ¶ 72 , 147 P.3d 763, 783 (App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Simon v. Safeway, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Simon v. Safeway, Inc., 217 Ariz. 330, ¶ 6 , 173 P.3d 1031, 1034 (App. 2007); Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9, ¶ 72 , 147 P.3d 763, 783 (App. 2006). 2017See Simon v. Safeway, Inc., 217 Ariz. 330, ¶ 6 , 173 P.3d 1031, 1034 (App. 2007); Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9, ¶ 72 , 147 P.3d 763, 783 (App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Woerth v. City of Flagstaffgreen2 sentences2014See Woerth, 167 Ariz. at 417 , 808 P.2d at 302 . 2014See Woerth, 167 Ariz. at 417 , 808 P.2d at 302 . | 1 | 1 |
Curtis v. Richardsongreen2 sentences2013“By its plain meaning, the statute requires an evidentiary hearing only upon a showing that a hearing is necessary to [determine whether the agency action was not supported by substantial evidence, was contrary to law, was arbitrary and eapri-cious or was an abuse of discretion].” Richardson, 212 Ariz. at 311, ¶ 11 , 131 P.3d at 483 . ¶ 15 During oral argument on appeal, Western States cited a similar filing with ADEQ as an example of a ease in which the entity attempting to collect SAF funds had insurance but did not diligently pursue the insurance, yet ADEQ did not withhold the SAF funds on 2013“By its plain meaning, the statute requires an evidentiary hearing only upon a showing that a hearing is necessary to [determine whether the agency action was not supported by substantial evidence, was contrary to law, was arbitrary and eapri-cious or was an abuse of discretion].” Richardson, 212 Ariz. at 311, ¶ 11 , 131 P.3d at 483 . ¶ 15 During oral argument on appeal, Western States cited a similar filing with ADEQ as an example of a ease in which the entity attempting to collect SAF funds had insurance but did not diligently pursue the insurance, yet ADEQ did not withhold the SAF funds on | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vaskogreen1 sentence2012Id. at 147, ¶¶ 21-22 , 971 P.2d at 194 (stating a conviction will not be reversed absent a showing of error prejudicial to a substantial light). | 1 | 1 |
Evergreen West, Inc. v. Boydgreen2 sentences2008See Evergreen W., 167 Ariz. at 621 , 810 P.2d at 619 (“Upon a showing that the claim has ‘some basis,’ ... the lis pendens should remain in effect until a trial on the merits.”). 2008See Evergreen W., 167 Ariz. at 621 , 810 P.2d at 619 (“Upon a showing that the claim has ‘some basis,’ ... the lis pendens should remain in effect until a trial on the merits.”). | 1 | 1 |
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Boardgreen2 sentences2006Shaffer v. Ariz. State Liquor Bd., 197 Ariz. 405, 408, ¶ 8 , 4 P.3d 460, 463 (App.2000). ¶ 11 Section 12-910 requires an evidentiary hearing only upon a showing that a hearing is necessary for the court’s determination on review. 2006Shaffer v. Ariz. State Liquor Bd., 197 Ariz. 405, 408, ¶ 8 , 4 P.3d 460, 463 (App.2000). ¶ 11 Section 12-910 requires an evidentiary hearing only upon a showing that a hearing is necessary for the court’s determination on review. | 1 | 1 |
The City of Phoenix v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1969See City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 124 , 75 P.2d 30, 34 (1938); and Prosser, Torts § 87, pp. 592, 594. 1969See City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 124 , 75 P.2d 30, 34 (1938); and Prosser, Torts § 87, pp. 592, 594. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moran v. Burbine
green
1 sentence2022E.g., 18 STATE v. MACHARDY Opinion of the Court Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482-87 (1981) (emphasizing that “voluntariness” of waiver and whether waiver is “knowing and intelligent” are “discrete inquiries” and reversing Arizona Supreme Court for failing to separately consider both aspects of waiver). ¶46 The United States Supreme Court has made it equally clear that, in the context of constitutional waivers, “voluntary” is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning. 9 Voluntariness is not established by a showing that the waiver is volitional or intentional—or that the defendant s | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Petersen v. City of Mesa
green
2 sentences2005The Citizen also claims that the publication of the letter is protected by the Arizona Constitution’s "even greater protection for freedom of the press than the First Amendment[’s].” Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution provides that "[ejvery person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." Given our conclusion that tort liability for the publication of this letter is prohibited by the federal constitution, we need not decide today whether the state constitution provides "even greater protection.” See Petersen v. City of M 2005The Citizen also claims that the publication of the letter is protected by the Arizona Constitution’s "even greater protection for freedom of the press than the First Amendment[’s].” Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution provides that "[ejvery person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." Given our conclusion that tort liability for the publication of this letter is prohibited by the federal constitution, we need not decide today whether the state constitution provides "even greater protection.” See Petersen v. City of M | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa
green
2 sentences1992The foundation may not include any discussion regarding the accuracy with which HGN test results correlate to, or predict, a BAC of greater or less than .10%. 165 Ariz. at 518-19 , 799 P.2d at 859-60 . 1992The foundation may not include any discussion regarding the accuracy with which HGN test results correlate to, or predict, a BAC of greater or less than .10%. 165 Ariz. at 518-19 , 799 P.2d at 859-60 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1976We should heed the admonition of Justice Black that harmless error requires a showing that the error did not contribute to the conviction “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 1976We should heed the admonition of Justice Black that harmless error requires a showing that the error did not contribute to the conviction “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1974In absence of a showing that the defense was prejudiced in the presentation of its case by this admitted late disclosure, there is no basis for reversal under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and State v. Fowler, 101 Ariz. 561 , 422 P.2d 125 (1967). 7. 1974In absence of a showing that the defense was prejudiced in the presentation of its case by this admitted late disclosure, there is no basis for reversal under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and State v. Fowler, 101 Ariz. 561 , 422 P.2d 125 (1967). 7. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. O'Dell Fowler
green
2 sentences1974In absence of a showing that the defense was prejudiced in the presentation of its case by this admitted late disclosure, there is no basis for reversal under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and State v. Fowler, 101 Ariz. 561 , 422 P.2d 125 (1967). 7. 1974In absence of a showing that the defense was prejudiced in the presentation of its case by this admitted late disclosure, there is no basis for reversal under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and State v. Fowler, 101 Ariz. 561 , 422 P.2d 125 (1967). 7. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Collison v. International Insurance
green
2 sentences1951Co., 58 Ariz. 156 , 118 P.2d 445, 447 , as follows: “* * * We think, however, that when the pleadings present affirmatively certain issues or limitations of issues, in order that we should hold the case was tried on any other theory, there must be some affirmative showing in the record that such was the fact, and that in the absence of such a showing the presumption is that the case was tried on the issues set forth in the pleadings only. * * *" It is true that in the case last above cited the facts are entirely different from the facts in the instant case but the principle involved is identic 1951Co., 58 Ariz. 156 , 118 P.2d 445, 447 , as follows: “* * * We think, however, that when the pleadings present affirmatively certain issues or limitations of issues, in order that we should hold the case was tried on any other theory, there must be some affirmative showing in the record that such was the fact, and that in the absence of such a showing the presumption is that the case was tried on the issues set forth in the pleadings only. * * *" It is true that in the case last above cited the facts are entirely different from the facts in the instant case but the principle involved is identic | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.