cost defense in Arizona

12 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2019 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Torres-Sotogreen arizctapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008He claims that information in the presentence report shows he did not have the financial ability to contribute 354 to the cost of his defense and cites State v. Torres-Soto, 187 Ariz. 144, 146 , 927 P.2d 804, 806 (App.1996), for the proposition that “overriding considerations about integrity of [the] justice system” render the imposition of attorney fees fundamental error when a defendant clearly cannot afford such fees. 2008He claims that information in the presentence report shows he did not have the financial ability to contribute 354 to the cost of his defense and cites State v. Torres-Soto, 187 Ariz. 144, 146 , 927 P.2d 804, 806 (App.1996), for the proposition that “overriding considerations about integrity of [the] justice system” render the imposition of attorney fees fundamental error when a defendant clearly cannot afford such fees.	2	2
Trade Commission v. Skaggs Drug Centers, Inc.green utah · 1968 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981The constitutionality of a statute is not to be decided on questions of inconvenience, or difficulty in application of a cost standard. 21 Utah 2d at 439-440 , 446 P.2d at 963-964 (footnotes omitted). 1981The constitutionality of a statute is not to be decided on questions of inconvenience, or difficulty in application of a cost standard. 21 Utah 2d at 439-440 , 446 P.2d at 963-964 (footnotes omitted).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Brooks green arizctapp · 1975 2 sentences 2007Id. 2007Id.	2	2007–2007
McClead v. Pima County green arizctapp · 1992 1 sentence 2019It argues such payments are equivalent to subsidies, and it cites McClead v. Pima County, 174 Ariz. 348 (App. 1992), for the proposition that subsidies qualify as payments in the context of A.R.S. § 35-212. 2 ABOR argues the State has waived this argument because the State failed to raise it in the superior court.	1	2019–2019
Matter of Marquardt green ariz · 1989 2 sentences 2004Moreover, “the goal of judicial discipline is not to punish the judge but to protect the public and the judiciary’s integrity.” Marquardt, 161 Ariz. at 214 , 778 P.2d at 249 (citing Haddad, 128 Ariz. at 492 , 627 P.2d at 223 ). 2004Moreover, “the goal of judicial discipline is not to punish the judge but to protect the public and the judiciary’s integrity.” Marquardt, 161 Ariz. at 214 , 778 P.2d at 249 (citing Haddad, 128 Ariz. at 492 , 627 P.2d at 223 ).	1	2004–2004
Matter of Haddad green ariz · 1981 2 sentences 2004Moreover, “the goal of judicial discipline is not to punish the judge but to protect the public and the judiciary’s integrity.” Marquardt, 161 Ariz. at 214 , 778 P.2d at 249 (citing Haddad, 128 Ariz. at 492 , 627 P.2d at 223 ). 2004Moreover, “the goal of judicial discipline is not to punish the judge but to protect the public and the judiciary’s integrity.” Marquardt, 161 Ariz. at 214 , 778 P.2d at 249 (citing Haddad, 128 Ariz. at 492 , 627 P.2d at 223 ).	1	2004–2004
Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs green scotus · 1983 1 sentence 1997The “shift in the relative value of take-home pay versus fringe benefits” had “dramatically altered] the cost factors upon which employers and their insurers have relied in ordering their affairs.” Id.	1	1997–1997
National Indemnity Co. v. St. Paul Insurance Companies green ariz · 1986 2 sentences 1994Id. at 459 , 724 P.2d at 545 . 1994Id. at 459 , 724 P.2d at 545 .	1	1994–1994
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. green arizctapp · 1983 2 sentences 1985Thus, the jury should have been able to assess Cessna’s duty to warn, and should have decided “whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the user would fail to read the directions or fail to follow them, in the absence of a warning as to the consequences of such misuse.” Brown, 136 Ariz. at 564 , 667 P.2d at 758 , quoting W. 1985Thus, the jury should have been able to assess Cessna’s duty to warn, and should have decided “whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the user would fail to read the directions or fail to follow them, in the absence of a warning as to the consequences of such misuse.” Brown, 136 Ariz. at 564 , 667 P.2d at 758 , quoting W.	1	1985–1985
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance green ariz · 1971 2 sentences 1985This opinion, however, was vacated on other grounds by the Arizona Supreme Court at 107 Ariz. 227 , 485 P.2d 552 (1971). 1985This opinion, however, was vacated on other grounds by the Arizona Supreme Court at 107 Ariz. 227 , 485 P.2d 552 (1971).	1	1985–1985
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance green arizctapp · 1971 2 sentences 1985Co., 13 Ariz.App. 31 , 474 P.2d 38 (1970), we held under similar facts that the non-defending insurer was liable for a pro rata share of whatever loss was determined and further found that: [E]ach [insurer] has an obligation to defend, ... the cost of such defense to be borne on the same pro rata basis as liability. 13 Ariz.App. at 37 , 474 P.2d 38 . 1985Co., 13 Ariz.App. 31 , 474 P.2d 38 (1970), we held under similar facts that the non-defending insurer was liable for a pro rata share of whatever loss was determined and further found that: [E]ach [insurer] has an obligation to defend, ... the cost of such defense to be borne on the same pro rata basis as liability. 13 Ariz.App. at 37 , 474 P.2d 38 .	1	1985–1985
Shell v. Schmidt green calctapp · 1958 2 sentences 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936). 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936).	1	1965–1965
Loggins v. Gates green texapp · 1957 1 sentence 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936).	1	1965–1965
Busboom v. Smith green okla · 1948 2 sentences 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936). 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936).	1	1965–1965
Nees v. Weaver green wis · 1936 2 sentences 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936). 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936).	1	1965–1965
Bernbaum v. Hodges green wash · 1953 2 sentences 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936). 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936).	1	1965–1965
Phipps v. Lopinsky neutral wva · 1924 1 sentence 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936).	1	1965–1965
Springer v. Jones neutral indctapp · 1919 2 sentences 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936). 1965See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wash.2d 503 , 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okl. 688 , 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla.1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350 , 330 P.2d 817 , 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W.Va. 547 , 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind.App. 269 , 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492 , 269 N.W. 266 , 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936).	1	1965–1965

Where else courts name it

CA 82 (1915–2026) NY 28 (1899–2019) LA 20 (1980–2018) IL 20 (1916–2022) MI 18 (1945–2024) NJ 18 (1971–2024) TX 17 (1986–2026) WA 16 (1972–2019) CO 16 (1960–2026) MD 15 (1975–2019) FL 14 (1981–2025) AZ 12 (1965–2019) PA 12 (1937–2017) MA 11 (1903–2026) IA 10 (1972–2025) MO 10 (1983–2021) MS 9 (1986–2004) WI 8 (1947–2026) AK 8 (1973–2025) CT 7 (1995–2019) MN 7 (1981–2016) GA 7 (1983–2025) OH 7 (1993–2024) OK 6 (1962–2015) TN 6 (1985–2013) IN 6 (2010–2020) KS 6 (1913–2009) NH 5 (2008–2021) NM 5 (1990–2015) VA 5 (1955–2026) NC 5 (1992–2018) OR 4 (1933–2021) HI 4 (2009–2016) RI 3 (1981–2006) WY 3 (1984–2021) AL 2 (1986–2010) SC 2 (1977–1999) UT 2 (1990–1997) DC 2 (1982–2025) ID 2 (1992–1997) NV 2 (1995–2021) MT 2 (1998–2003) NE 2 (1983–1984)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check