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.
14 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences1977The test to determine the application of A.R.S. § 13-1641 can be found in State v. Mitchell, 106 Ariz. 492 , 478 P.2d 517 (1970): “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.” 106 Ariz. at 495 , 478 P.2d at 520 . 1977The test to determine the application of A.R.S. § 13-1641 can be found in State v. Mitchell, 106 Ariz. 492 , 478 P.2d 517 (1970): “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.” 106 Ariz. at 495 , 478 P.2d at 520 . | 5 | 11 |
State v. Lippigreen2 sentences1976See also State v. Lippi, 108 Ariz. 342 , 498 P.2d 209 (1972); State v. Mays, 108 Ariz. 172 , 494 P.2d 368 (1972); State v. Tinghitella, 108 Ariz. 1 , 491 P.2d 834 (1971). 1976See also State v. Lippi, 108 Ariz. 342 , 498 P.2d 209 (1972); State v. Mays, 108 Ariz. 172 , 494 P.2d 368 (1972); State v. Tinghitella, 108 Ariz. 1 , 491 P.2d 834 (1971). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tinghitellagreen2 sentences1976See also State v. Lippi, 108 Ariz. 342 , 498 P.2d 209 (1972); State v. Mays, 108 Ariz. 172 , 494 P.2d 368 (1972); State v. Tinghitella, 108 Ariz. 1 , 491 P.2d 834 (1971). 1976See also State v. Lippi, 108 Ariz. 342 , 498 P.2d 209 (1972); State v. Mays, 108 Ariz. 172 , 494 P.2d 368 (1972); State v. Tinghitella, 108 Ariz. 1 , 491 P.2d 834 (1971). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Osborne MacKeygreen1 sentence1984See also, United States v. Mackey, 626 F.2d 684, 685-86 (9th Cir.1980) [the court held that Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), formulated a practical rule that does not draw fine distinctions among searches conducted after a ear is stopped on a street or highway and those conducted at a later time and place]; United States v. Bellina, 665 F.2d 1335, 1341 (4th Cir.1981) [holding that the rule of limited or diminished expectation of privacy that exists in connection with automobiles has been consistently held to attach to airplanes]. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Matthew Bellina, Daniel David Hochroth, and Anthony Di Benedettogreen2 sentences1984See also, United States v. Mackey, 626 F.2d 684, 685-86 (9th Cir.1980) [the court held that Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), formulated a practical rule that does not draw fine distinctions among searches conducted after a ear is stopped on a street or highway and those conducted at a later time and place]; United States v. Bellina, 665 F.2d 1335, 1341 (4th Cir.1981) [holding that the rule of limited or diminished expectation of privacy that exists in connection with automobiles has been consistently held to attach to airplanes]. 1984The court in Beilina, noted that the rationale for the diminished expectation of privacy was not so much the vehicle’s mobility as the fact that the vehicle was on public thoroughfares where both its occupants and contents were in plain view. 665 F.2d at 1340 . | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Maroneygreen2 sentences1984See also, United States v. Mackey, 626 F.2d 684, 685-86 (9th Cir.1980) [the court held that Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), formulated a practical rule that does not draw fine distinctions among searches conducted after a ear is stopped on a street or highway and those conducted at a later time and place]; United States v. Bellina, 665 F.2d 1335, 1341 (4th Cir.1981) [holding that the rule of limited or diminished expectation of privacy that exists in connection with automobiles has been consistently held to attach to airplanes]. 1984See also, United States v. Mackey, 626 F.2d 684, 685-86 (9th Cir.1980) [the court held that Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), formulated a practical rule that does not draw fine distinctions among searches conducted after a ear is stopped on a street or highway and those conducted at a later time and place]; United States v. Bellina, 665 F.2d 1335, 1341 (4th Cir.1981) [holding that the rule of limited or diminished expectation of privacy that exists in connection with automobiles has been consistently held to attach to airplanes]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin
green
2 sentences2017Particularity Requirement Under Rule 59(m) ¶ 13 Since shortly after Rule 59(m)’s adoption in 1954, our courts have endeavored to articulate a practical standard for determining when an order states sufficient facts and conclusions to satisfy the rule’s particularity requirement. 3 In Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin, 100 Ariz. 80, 83 , 411 P.2d 809 (1966), we reasoned that particularity means “in a detail,” and instructed that mere recitation of the statutory grounds for a new trial in Rule 59(a) “manifestly” failed to satisfy Rule 59(m)’s particularity requirement. 2017Particularity Requirement Under Rule 59(m) ¶ 13 Since shortly after Rule 59(m)’s adoption in 1954, our courts have endeavored to articulate a practical standard for determining when an order states sufficient facts and conclusions to satisfy the rule’s particularity requirement. 3 In Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin, 100 Ariz. 80, 83 , 411 P.2d 809 (1966), we reasoned that particularity means “in a detail,” and instructed that mere recitation of the statutory grounds for a new trial in Rule 59(a) “manifestly” failed to satisfy Rule 59(m)’s particularity requirement. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Celaya
green
2 sentences1977In State v. Celaya, 27 Ariz.App. 564 , 556 P.2d 1167 (1976) it was held that conviction for conspiracy to sell heroin and transportation of heroin was not prohibited by A.R.S. § 13-1641. 1977In State v. Celaya, 27 Ariz.App. 564 , 556 P.2d 1167 (1976) it was held that conviction for conspiracy to sell heroin and transportation of heroin was not prohibited by A.R.S. § 13-1641. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Mays
green
2 sentences1976See also State v. Lippi, 108 Ariz. 342 , 498 P.2d 209 (1972); State v. Mays, 108 Ariz. 172 , 494 P.2d 368 (1972); State v. Tinghitella, 108 Ariz. 1 , 491 P.2d 834 (1971). 1976See also State v. Lippi, 108 Ariz. 342 , 498 P.2d 209 (1972); State v. Mays, 108 Ariz. 172 , 494 P.2d 368 (1972); State v. Tinghitella, 108 Ariz. 1 , 491 P.2d 834 (1971). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Westbrook
green
2 sentences1971A.R.S. § 13-1641 provides that an “act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under either, but in no event under more than one.” In State v. Mitchell, 106 Ariz. 492 at 495 , 478 P.2d 517 at 520 (1970), this Court, reaffirming the “identical elements test” set forth in State v. Westbrook, 79 Ariz. 116 , 285 P.2d 161 (1954), which test was to be used in determining whether § 13-1641 had been violated, stated: “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the othe 1971A.R.S. § 13-1641 provides that an “act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under either, but in no event under more than one.” In State v. Mitchell, 106 Ariz. 492 at 495 , 478 P.2d 517 at 520 (1970), this Court, reaffirming the “identical elements test” set forth in State v. Westbrook, 79 Ariz. 116 , 285 P.2d 161 (1954), which test was to be used in determining whether § 13-1641 had been violated, stated: “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the othe | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Jacobs v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1970Applying this test to the cases which have been decided by this Court in the past — for example — in State v. Jacobs, 93 Ariz. 336 , 380 P.2d 998 , app. dismissed, 375 U.S. 46 , 84 S.Ct. 158 , 11 L.Ed.2d 108 , the defendant was charged with rape and kidnapping. 1970Applying this test to the cases which have been decided by this Court in the past — for example — in State v. Jacobs, 93 Ariz. 336 , 380 P.2d 998 , app. dismissed, 375 U.S. 46 , 84 S.Ct. 158 , 11 L.Ed.2d 108 , the defendant was charged with rape and kidnapping. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
John W. Crews v. Wainwright
neutral
1 sentence1970Applying this test to the cases which have been decided by this Court in the past — for example — in State v. Jacobs, 93 Ariz. 336 , 380 P.2d 998 , app. dismissed, 375 U.S. 46 , 84 S.Ct. 158 , 11 L.Ed.2d 108 , the defendant was charged with rape and kidnapping. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences1970Applying this test to the cases which have been decided by this Court in the past — for example — in State v. Jacobs, 93 Ariz. 336 , 380 P.2d 998 , app. dismissed, 375 U.S. 46 , 84 S.Ct. 158 , 11 L.Ed.2d 108 , the defendant was charged with rape and kidnapping. 1970Applying this test to the cases which have been decided by this Court in the past — for example — in State v. Jacobs, 93 Ariz. 336 , 380 P.2d 998 , app. dismissed, 375 U.S. 46 , 84 S.Ct. 158 , 11 L.Ed.2d 108 , the defendant was charged with rape and kidnapping. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.