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.
12 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glenn v. Chenowthgreen2 sentences1964We specifically reversed the giving of an abstract instruction in Glenn v. Chenowth, 71 Ariz. 271, 273 , 226 P.2d 165 , in this language: “Defendants contend that instruction No. 5 has no application to the facts in this case and is merely an abstract statement of law. 1964We specifically reversed the giving of an abstract instruction in Glenn v. Chenowth, 71 Ariz. 271, 273 , 226 P.2d 165 , in this language: “Defendants contend that instruction No. 5 has no application to the facts in this case and is merely an abstract statement of law. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Willitsgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 190–91 (1964); Glenn v. Chenowth, 71 Ariz. 271 , 273–74 (1951) (holding a self-defense instruction was improper in a civil suit where neither party asserted such a claim and “[t]he instruction was susceptible of conveying the impression to the jury that the trial judge may possibly have thought that [the plaintiff] had been attacked by [the defendant]”). 24 STATE V. 2020See State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 190–91 (1964); Glenn v. Chenowth, 71 Ariz. 271 , 273–74 (1951) (holding a self-defense instruction was improper in a civil suit where neither party asserted such a claim and “[t]he instruction was susceptible of conveying the impression to the jury that the trial judge may possibly have thought that [the plaintiff] had been attacked by [the defendant]”). 24 STATE V. | 2 | 3 |
Godvig v. Lopezgreen2 sentences1983Godvig v. Lopez, 185 Or. 301 , 202 P.2d 935 (1949), cited with approval in State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 393 P.2d 274 (1964). 1983Godvig v. Lopez, 185 Or. 301 , 202 P.2d 935 (1949), cited with approval in State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 393 P.2d 274 (1964). | 1 | 2 |
City of Phoenix v. Rodgersgreen2 sentences2006It precedes these questions....’" City of Phoenix v. Rodgers, 44 Ariz. 40, 48-49 , 34 P.2d 385, 388-89 (1934) (citation omitted). 2006It precedes these questions....’" City of Phoenix v. Rodgers, 44 Ariz. 40, 48-49 , 34 P.2d 385, 388-89 (1934) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley
green
1 sentence2020"An abstract instruction may amount to a comment on the evidence if the instruction indicates the trial judge's opinion regarding some evidence of the case." Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Butane Corporation v. Kirby
green
2 sentences1964Butane Corp. v. Kirby, 66 Ariz. 272 , 187 P.2d 325 .” In the case at bar, this is not an abstract instruction because it had direct relation to vital issues and evidence in the case confining the jury to the true issues and not diverting it to extraneous ones. 1964Butane Corp. v. Kirby, 66 Ariz. 272 , 187 P.2d 325 .” In the case at bar, this is not an abstract instruction because it had direct relation to vital issues and evidence in the case confining the jury to the true issues and not diverting it to extraneous ones. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Bristor v. Cheatham
green
2 sentences1955Since the enactment of the law under consideration, this court by a majority opinion in the case of Bristor v. Cheatham, 75 Ariz. 227 , 255 P.2d 173 , has declared that ground water which is the subject of the act belongs to the owner of the soil. 1955Since the enactment of the law under consideration, this court by a majority opinion in the case of Bristor v. Cheatham, 75 Ariz. 227 , 255 P.2d 173 , has declared that ground water which is the subject of the act belongs to the owner of the soil. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Cox v. MacKenzie
green
2 sentences1953Cox v. Mackenzie, 70 Ariz. 308 , 219 P.2d 1048 ; Bates v. Mitchell, 67 Ariz. 151 , 192 P.2d 720 . 1953Cox v. Mackenzie, 70 Ariz. 308 , 219 P.2d 1048 ; Bates v. Mitchell, 67 Ariz. 151 , 192 P.2d 720 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Bates v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1953Cox v. Mackenzie, 70 Ariz. 308 , 219 P.2d 1048 ; Bates v. Mitchell, 67 Ariz. 151 , 192 P.2d 720 . 1953Cox v. Mackenzie, 70 Ariz. 308 , 219 P.2d 1048 ; Bates v. Mitchell, 67 Ariz. 151 , 192 P.2d 720 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
State ex rel. Standish v. Boucher
green
2 sentences1938If on the expiration of the term of a public officer, an appointment of a successor is made by the governor but it is not confirmed by the state senate as required by a law of this type such successor does not obtain the right to enter on the duties of the office but the former incumbent may hold over until a successor is properly appointed and confirmed.” The cases supporting this text are many, a few of which are: State v. Boucher, 3 N. D. 389 , 56 N. W. 142, 145 , 21 L. 1938If on the expiration of the term of a public officer, an appointment of a successor is made by the governor but it is not confirmed by the state senate as required by a law of this type such successor does not obtain the right to enter on the duties of the office but the former incumbent may hold over until a successor is properly appointed and confirmed.” The cases supporting this text are many, a few of which are: State v. Boucher, 3 N. D. 389 , 56 N. W. 142, 145 , 21 L. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
State v. Spaulding
green
2 sentences1938We think the language of the court in State v. Spaulding, 102 Iowa 639 , 72 N. W. 288 , describes the situation better than any other we have found (p. 291): *19 “ . . . 1938We think the language of the court in State v. Spaulding, 102 Iowa 639 , 72 N. W. 288 , describes the situation better than any other we have found (p. 291): *19 “ . . . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Gila Valley, Globe, & Northern Railroad v. Lyon
neutral
2 sentences1925Gila Valley etc. Railway Co. v. Lyon, 8 Ariz. 118 , 71 Pac. 957 ; Ewing v. United States, 11 Ariz. 1 , 89 Pac. 593 ; 38 Cyc. 613. 1925Gila Valley etc. Railway Co. v. Lyon, 8 Ariz. 118 , 71 Pac. 957 ; Ewing v. United States, 11 Ariz. 1 , 89 Pac. 593 ; 38 Cyc. 613. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Ewing v. United States
neutral
2 sentences1925Gila Valley etc. Railway Co. v. Lyon, 8 Ariz. 118 , 71 Pac. 957 ; Ewing v. United States, 11 Ariz. 1 , 89 Pac. 593 ; 38 Cyc. 613. 1925Gila Valley etc. Railway Co. v. Lyon, 8 Ariz. 118 , 71 Pac. 957 ; Ewing v. United States, 11 Ariz. 1 , 89 Pac. 593 ; 38 Cyc. 613. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Snider v. Windsor
neutral
2 sentences1922In a situation of this kind the following language of the Supreme Court of Kansas in Snider v. Windsor, 77 Kan. 67 , 93 Pac. 600 , applies with force: “If, however, we should concede that the allowance of the amendment was technically erroneous, still the substantial rights of the defendants were not affected thereby. 1922In a situation of this kind the following language of the Supreme Court of Kansas in Snider v. Windsor, 77 Kan. 67 , 93 Pac. 600 , applies with force: “If, however, we should concede that the allowance of the amendment was technically erroneous, still the substantial rights of the defendants were not affected thereby. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.