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 1975–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Schackartgreen2 sentences2023As in those cases, to “hold otherwise would deprive the state of the only adequate means to contest 8 the conclusions of a defense psychiatric expert.” Id. (quoting Schackart, 175 Ariz. at 500 ). 2023As in those cases, to “hold otherwise would deprive the state of the only adequate means to contest 8 the conclusions of a defense psychiatric expert.” Id. (quoting Schackart, 175 Ariz. at 500 ). | 1 | 5 |
Phillips v. Aranetagreen2 sentences2022The court ultimately held “that ordering defendant to submit to a mental examination did not violate his privilege against self-incrimination,” reasoning that “[t]o hold otherwise would deprive the state of the only adequate means to contest the conclusions of a defense psychiatric expert.” Id. at 500-01. ¶9 More recently, in Phillips v. Araneta, 208 Ariz. 280 (2004), our supreme court extended Schackart’s reasoning to the penalty phase in a capital trial. 2020Accordingly, when a defendant makes mental health an issue for a penalty phase, the superior court cannot “deprive the State of the only adequate means to contest the conclusions of a defense psychiatric expert.” Id. at ¶ 8 (quoting State v. Schackart, 175 Ariz. 494, 500 (1993)). ¶12 “Under the American Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics, ‘psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions.’” Id. at 285, ¶ 18 (quoting Ethical Standard 9.01 | 1 | 2 |
Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/stategreen1 sentence2023After all, our criminal rules “generally establish reciprocal discovery rights, which are ‘intended to further the concept that a defendant is not entitled to an unfair advantage in the presentation of his defense.’” LaBianca, 254 Ariz. 206 , ¶ 11 (quoting Cabanas v. Pineda, 246 Ariz. 12, ¶ 25 (App. 2018)). | 1 | 1 |
Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLCgreen2 sentences2009Desert Images, LLC, 218 Ariz. 121, 131, ¶ 25 , 180 P.3d 986, 996 (App.2008) (finding the standards for granting summary judgment and JMOL are similar: whether the evidence in support of a claim would not allow reasonable people to agree with the conclusions of the claim’s proponent). 2009Desert Images, LLC, 218 Ariz. 121, 131, ¶ 25 , 180 P.3d 986, 996 (App.2008) (finding the standards for granting summary judgment and JMOL are similar: whether the evidence in support of a claim would not allow reasonable people to agree with the conclusions of the claim’s proponent). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Billy G. Byersgreen1 sentence1993See United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104, 1111-13 (D.C.Cir.1984) (plurality opinion) (upholding court-ordered psychiatric exam as necessary to maintain a “fair state-individual balance”). | 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 v. Hon labianca/pedro
green
1 sentence2023After all, our criminal rules “generally establish reciprocal discovery rights, which are ‘intended to further the concept that a defendant is not entitled to an unfair advantage in the presentation of his defense.’” LaBianca, 254 Ariz. 206 , ¶ 11 (quoting Cabanas v. Pineda, 246 Ariz. 12, ¶ 25 (App. 2018)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner
green
1 sentence2020But the court’s characterization of First Mercury’s defense as without merit or novelty did not “exceed[] the bounds of reason.” Warner, 143 Ariz. at 571 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Faith Realty & Development Co. v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1976The petitioner relies heavily on the case of Faith Realty & Development Co. v. Industrial Comm. of Colo., 170 Colo. 215 , 460 P.2d 228 (1969). 1976The petitioner relies heavily on the case of Faith Realty & Development Co. v. Industrial Comm. of Colo., 170 Colo. 215 , 460 P.2d 228 (1969). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Micucci v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1975Reviewing the evidence in light most favorable toward sustaining the conclusions of the hearing officer and The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Spears v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz.App. 406 , 513 P.2d 695 (1973); Rutledge v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 61 , 492 P.2d 1168 (1972); Micucci v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 194 , 494 P.2d 1324 (1972), we hold the findings and award are supported by substantial evidence. 1975Reviewing the evidence in light most favorable toward sustaining the conclusions of the hearing officer and The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Spears v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz.App. 406 , 513 P.2d 695 (1973); Rutledge v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 61 , 492 P.2d 1168 (1972); Micucci v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 194 , 494 P.2d 1324 (1972), we hold the findings and award are supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Rutledge v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1975Reviewing the evidence in light most favorable toward sustaining the conclusions of the hearing officer and The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Spears v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz.App. 406 , 513 P.2d 695 (1973); Rutledge v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 61 , 492 P.2d 1168 (1972); Micucci v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 194 , 494 P.2d 1324 (1972), we hold the findings and award are supported by substantial evidence. 1975Reviewing the evidence in light most favorable toward sustaining the conclusions of the hearing officer and The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Spears v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz.App. 406 , 513 P.2d 695 (1973); Rutledge v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 61 , 492 P.2d 1168 (1972); Micucci v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 194 , 494 P.2d 1324 (1972), we hold the findings and award are supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Broadus v. Industrial Commission
procedural
2 sentences1975In Broadus v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 18 Ariz. App. 429 , 503 P.2d 387 (1972) (review denied) we stated: “The medical evidence is documentary only. 1975In Broadus v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 18 Ariz. App. 429 , 503 P.2d 387 (1972) (review denied) we stated: “The medical evidence is documentary only. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Spears v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1975Reviewing the evidence in light most favorable toward sustaining the conclusions of the hearing officer and The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Spears v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz.App. 406 , 513 P.2d 695 (1973); Rutledge v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 61 , 492 P.2d 1168 (1972); Micucci v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 194 , 494 P.2d 1324 (1972), we hold the findings and award are supported by substantial evidence. 1975Reviewing the evidence in light most favorable toward sustaining the conclusions of the hearing officer and The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Spears v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz.App. 406 , 513 P.2d 695 (1973); Rutledge v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 61 , 492 P.2d 1168 (1972); Micucci v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz. 194 , 494 P.2d 1324 (1972), we hold the findings and award are supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.