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 1955–2026 3 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. Darrel Peter Pandeligreen1 sentence2026See Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 181, ¶ 6 . ¶15 Here, DNA evidence aside, there was considerable evidence supporting Navarro’s convictions, including surveillance video capturing portions of the incident, the victim’s testimony and injuries, cell phone evidence, and Navarro’s confession. | 1 | 1 |
Cummings v. Cummingsgreen1 sentence2025Sherman, 241 Ariz. at 113 ¶ 9–10; Cummings v. Cummings, 182 Ariz. 383, 385 (App. 1994). ¶41 The Guidelines consider the income of both parents to approximate the amount they would have spent on the children if the parents and children were all living together. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Vargasgreen1 sentence2021See, e.g., Vargas, 249 Ariz. at 189 ¶ 11 (“[W]e note that cases addressing similar claims based on prosecutorial misconduct have not presented a consistent framework for review.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roquegreen1 sentence2020Compare State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 , 228 ¶ 155 (2006) (stating that ”even if there was no error . . . an incident may nonetheless contribute to a finding of persistent and pervasive misconduct”) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 , 267 ¶ 14 (2017) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 140 ¶¶ 15–16 (2018), with State v. Hulsey, 243 Ariz. 367 , 388 ¶ 88 (2018) (considering only claims that constitute error in a cumulative error review). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozcogreen1 sentence2020Compare State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 , 228 ¶ 155 (2006) (stating that ”even if there was no error . . . an incident may nonetheless contribute to a finding of persistent and pervasive misconduct”) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 , 267 ¶ 14 (2017) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 140 ¶¶ 15–16 (2018), with State v. Hulsey, 243 Ariz. 367 , 388 ¶ 88 (2018) (considering only claims that constitute error in a cumulative error review). | 1 | 1 |
Lo v. Millsgreen2 sentences2014This is consistent with the standard of review for federal Rule 52(c): “[i]n reviewing the district court’s judgment . . . , we review its findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers Intern., 728 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 231 Ariz. 484 , 488 ¶ 18, 297 P.3d 176 , 180 (App. 2013) (“Federal cases interpreting federal rules of civil procedure that are similar to our rules are instructive and persuasive in construing our rules, and we subscribe to the principle t 2014This is consistent with the standard of review for federal Rule 52(c): “[i]n reviewing the district court’s judgment . . . , we review its findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers Intern., 728 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 231 Ariz. 484 , 488 ¶ 18, 297 P.3d 176 , 180 (App. 2013) (“Federal cases interpreting federal rules of civil procedure that are similar to our rules are instructive and persuasive in construing our rules, and we subscribe to the principle t | 1 | 1 |
United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers Internationalgreen1 sentence2014This is consistent with the standard of review for federal Rule 52(c): “[i]n reviewing the district court’s judgment . . . , we review its findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers Intern., 728 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 231 Ariz. 484 , 488 ¶ 18, 297 P.3d 176 , 180 (App. 2013) (“Federal cases interpreting federal rules of civil procedure that are similar to our rules are instructive and persuasive in construing our rules, and we subscribe to the principle t | 1 | 1 |
Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2014This is consistent with the principle that “[c]onsent alone gives jurisdiction to adjudge against a sovereign.” USF & G, 309 U.S. at 514 , 60 S.Ct. 653 . ¶ 11 For example, in Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., 585 F.3d 917, 918-19 (6th Cir.2009), an energy company that had contracted with a tribal corporation produced a signed, written agreement with language expressly waiving sovereign immunity. | 1 | 1 |
Rice v. Sanger Brothersgreen2 sentences1985See Rice v. Sanger Brothers, 27 Ariz. 15 , 229 P. 397 (1924). 1985See Rice v. Sanger Brothers, 27 Ariz. 15 , 229 P. 397 (1924). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sherman v. Sherman
green
1 sentence2025Sherman, 241 Ariz. at 113 ¶ 9–10; Cummings v. Cummings, 182 Ariz. 383, 385 (App. 1994). ¶41 The Guidelines consider the income of both parents to approximate the amount they would have spent on the children if the parents and children were all living together. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2020(B) for each issue, references to the record on appeal where the issue was raised and ruled on, and the applicable standard of appellate review with citation to supporting legal authority. ¶11 Before addressing whether Vargas adequately developed his claim of cumulative error, we note that cases addressing similar claims based on prosecutorial misconduct have not presented a consistent framework for review. 1 Compare State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 , 79 ¶ 26 (1998) (discussing the cumulative effect doctrine regarding prosecutorial misconduct in general and making no distinction between harmless | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Morton v. Maricopa County
green
2 sentences2015Page Keeton et ah, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 56, at 381 (5th ed.1984) [hereinafter Prosser and Keeton ]. ¶ 38 Recognizing that the State owed the Guerras a duty of care here is not inconsistent with the decisions in Vasquez v. State, 220 Ariz. 304 , 206 P.3d 753 (App.2008), or Morton v. Maricopa County, 177 Ariz. 147 , 865 P.2d 808 (App.1993). 2015Page Keeton et ah, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 56, at 381 (5th ed.1984) [hereinafter Prosser and Keeton ]. ¶ 38 Recognizing that the State owed the Guerras a duty of care here is not inconsistent with the decisions in Vasquez v. State, 220 Ariz. 304 , 206 P.3d 753 (App.2008), or Morton v. Maricopa County, 177 Ariz. 147 , 865 P.2d 808 (App.1993). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Vasquez v. State
green
2 sentences2015Page Keeton et ah, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 56, at 381 (5th ed.1984) [hereinafter Prosser and Keeton ]. ¶ 38 Recognizing that the State owed the Guerras a duty of care here is not inconsistent with the decisions in Vasquez v. State, 220 Ariz. 304 , 206 P.3d 753 (App.2008), or Morton v. Maricopa County, 177 Ariz. 147 , 865 P.2d 808 (App.1993). 2015Page Keeton et ah, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 56, at 381 (5th ed.1984) [hereinafter Prosser and Keeton ]. ¶ 38 Recognizing that the State owed the Guerras a duty of care here is not inconsistent with the decisions in Vasquez v. State, 220 Ariz. 304 , 206 P.3d 753 (App.2008), or Morton v. Maricopa County, 177 Ariz. 147 , 865 P.2d 808 (App.1993). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
2 sentences2014This is consistent with the principle that “[c]onsent alone gives jurisdiction to adjudge against a sovereign.” USF & G, 309 U.S. at 514 , 60 S.Ct. 653 . ¶ 11 For example, in Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., 585 F.3d 917, 918-19 (6th Cir.2009), an energy company that had contracted with a tribal corporation produced a signed, written agreement with language expressly waiving sovereign immunity. 2014This is consistent with the principle that “[c]onsent alone gives jurisdiction to adjudge against a sovereign.” USF & G, 309 U.S. at 514 , 60 S.Ct. 653 . ¶ 11 For example, in Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., 585 F.3d 917, 918-19 (6th Cir.2009), an energy company that had contracted with a tribal corporation produced a signed, written agreement with language expressly waiving sovereign immunity. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, Bruce R. Morgan, Claimant-Appellee
green
1 sentence1995This is consistent with the rule that forfeiture statutes are to be strictly construed against the government. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d at 1068 (citing United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 DeLuxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 , 59 S.Ct. 861, 864 , 83 L.Ed. 1249 (1939)) ("There are good reasons for this rule. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Commercial Credit Co.
green
2 sentences1995This is consistent with the rule that forfeiture statutes are to be strictly construed against the government. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d at 1068 (citing United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 DeLuxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 , 59 S.Ct. 861, 864 , 83 L.Ed. 1249 (1939)) ("There are good reasons for this rule. 1995This is consistent with the rule that forfeiture statutes are to be strictly construed against the government. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d at 1068 (citing United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 DeLuxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 , 59 S.Ct. 861, 864 , 83 L.Ed. 1249 (1939)) ("There are good reasons for this rule. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ethington v. Wright
green
2 sentences1975Ethington v. Wright, 66 Ariz. 382, 189 P.2d 209 (1948). 1975Ethington v. Wright, 66 Ariz. 382, 189 P.2d 209 (1948). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
United Verde Copper Co. v. Wiley
green
2 sentences1963Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63 , 258 P.2d 821 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Shields, 58 Ariz. 239 , 119 P.2d 116 ; United Verde Copper Co. v. Wiley, 20 Ariz. 525 , 183 P. 737 . 1963Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63 , 258 P.2d 821 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Shields, 58 Ariz. 239 , 119 P.2d 116 ; United Verde Copper Co. v. Wiley, 20 Ariz. 525 , 183 P. 737 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Stallcup v. Rathbun
green
2 sentences1963Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63 , 258 P.2d 821 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Shields, 58 Ariz. 239 , 119 P.2d 116 ; United Verde Copper Co. v. Wiley, 20 Ariz. 525 , 183 P. 737 . 1963Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63 , 258 P.2d 821 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Shields, 58 Ariz. 239 , 119 P.2d 116 ; United Verde Copper Co. v. Wiley, 20 Ariz. 525 , 183 P. 737 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Standard Oil Co. of California v. Shields
green
2 sentences1963Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63 , 258 P.2d 821 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Shields, 58 Ariz. 239 , 119 P.2d 116 ; United Verde Copper Co. v. Wiley, 20 Ariz. 525 , 183 P. 737 . 1963Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63 , 258 P.2d 821 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Shields, 58 Ariz. 239 , 119 P.2d 116 ; United Verde Copper Co. v. Wiley, 20 Ariz. 525 , 183 P. 737 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
State v. Coursey
green
2 sentences1955This is consistent with the rule laid down in Pray v. State, 56 Ariz. 171 , 106 P.2d 500 , and State v. Coursey, 71 Ariz. 227 , 225 P.2d 713 , to the effect that when an information had been quashed under the provisions of section 44 — 1013, A.C.A.1939, there is no action pending in the superior court against the defendant until a new information is filed. 1955This is consistent with the rule laid down in Pray v. State, 56 Ariz. 171 , 106 P.2d 500 , and State v. Coursey, 71 Ariz. 227 , 225 P.2d 713 , to the effect that when an information had been quashed under the provisions of section 44 — 1013, A.C.A.1939, there is no action pending in the superior court against the defendant until a new information is filed. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Pray v. State of Arizona
green
2 sentences1955This is consistent with the rule laid down in Pray v. State, 56 Ariz. 171 , 106 P.2d 500 , and State v. Coursey, 71 Ariz. 227 , 225 P.2d 713 , to the effect that when an information had been quashed under the provisions of section 44 — 1013, A.C.A.1939, there is no action pending in the superior court against the defendant until a new information is filed. 1955This is consistent with the rule laid down in Pray v. State, 56 Ariz. 171 , 106 P.2d 500 , and State v. Coursey, 71 Ariz. 227 , 225 P.2d 713 , to the effect that when an information had been quashed under the provisions of section 44 — 1013, A.C.A.1939, there is no action pending in the superior court against the defendant until a new information is filed. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.