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.
11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Napolitanogreen2 sentences2025Our constitution’s framers devoted an entire article to separation of powers . . . .”); see also Bennett, 206 Ariz. at 525 ¶ 19 (highlighting these constitutional differences). ¶18 The consequence of not having a case or controversy requirement in our Constitution is that in Arizona, standing is a prudential consideration rather than a mandatory prerequisite to suit. 2019Because none of these abstract legal claims may ever arise, the City contends that Plaintiffs’ action challenging PCC § 18-4(B)(2) is not ripe and should be dismissed. ¶34 We ordinarily review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion, Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission, 243 Ariz. 404 , 405 ¶ 6 (2018), but questions of standing and ripeness are reviewed de novo, In re Estate of Stewart, 230 Ariz. 480 , 483–84 ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (ripeness); Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 206 Ariz. 557 , 562 ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (standing). ¶3 | 3 | 5 |
Sears v. Hullgreen2 sentences2009“Because the Arizona Constitution does not contain a provision analogous to the case or controversy requirement of the U.S. Constitution, Ve are not constitutionally constrained to decline jurisdiction based on lack of standing.’” Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520, 527, ¶31 , 81 P.3d 311, 318 (2003) (quoting Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65, 71 , 961 P.2d 1013, 1019 (1998)). 2009“Because the Arizona Constitution does not contain a provision analogous to the case or controversy requirement of the U.S. Constitution, Ve are not constitutionally constrained to decline jurisdiction based on lack of standing.’” Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520, 527, ¶31 , 81 P.3d 311, 318 (2003) (quoting Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65, 71 , 961 P.2d 1013, 1019 (1998)). | 3 | 5 |
Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2013Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 215 Ariz. 114, 116, ¶ 7 , 158 P.3d 243, 245 (App.2007). 2013Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 215 Ariz. 114, 116, ¶ 7 , 158 P.3d 243, 245 (App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Wrightred2 sentences2003See The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton); see also Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 , 104 S.Ct. 3315 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). 2003See The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton); see also Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 , 104 S.Ct. 3315 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2019Because none of these abstract legal claims may ever arise, the City contends that Plaintiffs’ action challenging PCC § 18-4(B)(2) is not ripe and should be dismissed. ¶34 We ordinarily review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion, Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission, 243 Ariz. 404 , 405 ¶ 6 (2018), but questions of standing and ripeness are reviewed de novo, In re Estate of Stewart, 230 Ariz. 480 , 483–84 ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (ripeness); Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 206 Ariz. 557 , 562 ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (standing). ¶3 2019Because none of these abstract legal claims may ever arise, the City contends that Plaintiffs’ action challenging PCC § 18-4(B)(2) is not ripe and should be dismissed. ¶34 We ordinarily review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion, Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission, 243 Ariz. 404 , 405 ¶ 6 (2018), but questions of standing and ripeness are reviewed de novo, In re Estate of Stewart, 230 Ariz. 480 , 483–84 ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (ripeness); Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 206 Ariz. 557 , 562 ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (standing). ¶3 | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana
green
2 sentences2019Because none of these abstract legal claims may ever arise, the City contends that Plaintiffs’ action challenging PCC § 18-4(B)(2) is not ripe and should be dismissed. ¶34 We ordinarily review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion, Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission, 243 Ariz. 404 , 405 ¶ 6 (2018), but questions of standing and ripeness are reviewed de novo, In re Estate of Stewart, 230 Ariz. 480 , 483–84 ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (ripeness); Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 206 Ariz. 557 , 562 ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (standing). ¶3 2019Because none of these abstract legal claims may ever arise, the City contends that Plaintiffs’ action challenging PCC § 18-4(B)(2) is not ripe and should be dismissed. ¶34 We ordinarily review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion, Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission, 243 Ariz. 404 , 405 ¶ 6 (2018), but questions of standing and ripeness are reviewed de novo, In re Estate of Stewart, 230 Ariz. 480 , 483–84 ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (ripeness); Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 206 Ariz. 557 , 562 ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (standing). ¶3 | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Beth Fay v. Hon. fox/state/jordan Hanson
green
1 sentence2025Fay v. Fox, 251 Ariz. 537 , 541 ¶ 22 (2021). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bennett v. Brownlow
green
1 sentence2022Nevertheless, we apply the doctrines of standing and ripeness as a matter of judicial restraint to ensure courts “refrain from issuing advisory opinions, that cases be ripe for decision and not moot, and that issues be fully developed between true adversaries.” City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 246 Ariz. 206 , 209 ¶ 8 (2019) (quoting Bennett v. Brownlow, 211 Ariz. 193 , 196 ¶ 16 (2005)). 9 ¶24 Standing and ripeness are both prudential doctrines. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant
green
1 sentence2022Nevertheless, we apply the doctrines of standing and ripeness as a matter of judicial restraint to ensure courts “refrain from issuing advisory opinions, that cases be ripe for decision and not moot, and that issues be fully developed between true adversaries.” City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 246 Ariz. 206 , 209 ¶ 8 (2019) (quoting Bennett v. Brownlow, 211 Ariz. 193 , 196 ¶ 16 (2005)). 9 ¶24 Standing and ripeness are both prudential doctrines. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services
green
2 sentences1998Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs., 148 Ariz. 1 , 712 P.2d 914 (1985); State v. B Bar Enterprises, 133 Ariz. 99 , 649 P.2d 978 (1982). 1998Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs., 148 Ariz. 1 , 712 P.2d 914 (1985); State v. B Bar Enterprises, 133 Ariz. 99 , 649 P.2d 978 (1982). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs., 148 Ariz. 1 , 712 P.2d 914 (1985); State v. B Bar Enterprises, 133 Ariz. 99 , 649 P.2d 978 (1982). 1998Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs., 148 Ariz. 1 , 712 P.2d 914 (1985); State v. B Bar Enterprises, 133 Ariz. 99 , 649 P.2d 978 (1982). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.