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 1966–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.green2 sentences2023See Godbehere, 162 Ariz. at 343 (“[P]rotection for privacy interests generally applies only to private matters.”); cf. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, cmt. b (“There is no liability when the defendant merely gives further publicity to information about the plaintiff that is already public.”). 2000See Godbehere, 162 Ariz. at 341 , 783 P.2d at 787 . | 2 | 2 |
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Pettagreen2 sentences2021See Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568, 580, ¶ 30 (App. 2015) (affirming denial of judgment as a matter of law on a false light claim because “[t]he jury was in the best position to resolve . . . material questions of fact”). 8 CANAS, et al. v. BAY ENTERTAINMENT, et al. 2020See Desert Palm Surgical Grp. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568, 580, ¶ 29 (App. 2015) (actual malice an element of false light invasion of privacy). | 2 | 2 |
Gary Moore v. The Big Picture Companygreen2 sentences2019See id. at 281 (“The mere fact that some interested parties may have heard rumors from sources other than [the plaintiff] . . . is, without more, insufficient to meet the level of publicity required for a false light claim.”) (quoting Moore v. Big Picture Co., 828 F.2d 270, 274 (5th Cir. 1987)). 1997Moore v. Big Picture Co., 828 F.2d 270, 274 (5th Cir.1987) (affirming summary judgment against employee who was falsely accused of giving information to a competitor company). | 2 | 2 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukesgreen1 sentence2026See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011) (Rule 23(a) analysis may “entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guam Federation of Teachers, Local 1581, of the American Federation of Teachers, a Corporation v. Alfred C. Ysrael, Also Known as Al Ysrael
green
1 sentence1975If the evidence, so considered, measures up to the New York Times standard, the case is one for the jury, and it is error to grant a directed verdict, as the trial judge did in this case.” 492 F.2d at 441 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Valenzuela
neutral
2 sentences1967State v. Valenzuela, 5 Ariz.App. 225 , 425 P.2d 127 (1967). 1967State v. Valenzuela, 5 Ariz.App. 225 , 425 P.2d 127 (1967). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Throop v. FE Young and Company
green
2 sentences1967Young and Company, 94 Ariz. 146 , 382 P.2d 560 (1963), which case in turn cites Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., 81 Ariz. 232 , 303 P.2d 717 (1956), and in the light of the rule stated in Deisler, we are unable to state that there was error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1967Young and Company, 94 Ariz. 146 , 382 P.2d 560 (1963), which case in turn cites Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., 81 Ariz. 232 , 303 P.2d 717 (1956), and in the light of the rule stated in Deisler, we are unable to state that there was error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Capps v. American Airlines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1967Young and Company, 94 Ariz. 146 , 382 P.2d 560 (1963), which case in turn cites Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., 81 Ariz. 232 , 303 P.2d 717 (1956), and in the light of the rule stated in Deisler, we are unable to state that there was error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1967Young and Company, 94 Ariz. 146 , 382 P.2d 560 (1963), which case in turn cites Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., 81 Ariz. 232 , 303 P.2d 717 (1956), and in the light of the rule stated in Deisler, we are unable to state that there was error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Alvord v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences1966Alvord v. State Tax Commission, 69 Ariz. 287 , 213 P.2d 363 ; White v. Moore, 46 Ariz. 48 , 46 P.2d 1077 . 1966Alvord v. State Tax Commission, 69 Ariz. 287 , 213 P.2d 363 ; White v. Moore, 46 Ariz. 48 , 46 P.2d 1077 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
White v. Moore
green
2 sentences1966Alvord v. State Tax Commission, 69 Ariz. 287 , 213 P.2d 363 ; White v. Moore, 46 Ariz. 48 , 46 P.2d 1077 . 1966Alvord v. State Tax Commission, 69 Ariz. 287 , 213 P.2d 363 ; White v. Moore, 46 Ariz. 48 , 46 P.2d 1077 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.