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 1950–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haggard v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1959This court said in the case of Haggard v. Industrial Commission, 71 Ariz. 91, 100 , 223 P.2d 915, 921 , that “It is the general rule, well established in Arizona, that a litigant may not claim affirmative relief under an act of the legislature and at the same time contend a relative portion of the act under which the relief is claimed is unconstitutional. * * * ” We believe that defendants have placed themselves in this very position and should, not be allowed to raise the issue. 1959This court said in the case of Haggard v. Industrial Commission, 71 Ariz. 91, 100 , 223 P.2d 915, 921 , that “It is the general rule, well established in Arizona, that a litigant may not claim affirmative relief under an act of the legislature and at the same time contend a relative portion of the act under which the relief is claimed is unconstitutional. * * * ” We believe that defendants have placed themselves in this very position and should, not be allowed to raise the issue. | 1 | 2 |
Moore v. City of Pagegreen1 sentence2024However, this court concluded in Moore v. City of Page, 148 Ariz. 151, 154-56 (App. 1986), that a claim of voter disenfranchisement is not a pre-election procedural challenge. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Coloradogreen1 sentence2019See State v. Russo, 219 Ariz. 223, 225, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). ¶18 A litigant may challenge a statute’s constitutionality for overbreadth under the First Amendment even if his conduct or expression is not constitutionally protected and clearly falls within the statute’s “plainly legitimate sweep.” Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 , 731–32 (2000); State v. Steiger, 162 Ariz. 138 , 143–44 (App. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Steigergreen2 sentences2019See State v. Russo, 219 Ariz. 223, 225, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). ¶18 A litigant may challenge a statute’s constitutionality for overbreadth under the First Amendment even if his conduct or expression is not constitutionally protected and clearly falls within the statute’s “plainly legitimate sweep.” Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 , 731–32 (2000); State v. Steiger, 162 Ariz. 138 , 143–44 (App. 1989). 2019To raise a successful overbreadth claim, the challenging party must demonstrate a “realistic danger that the statute will significantly jeopardize recognized first amendment protections of individuals not before the court.” Steiger, 162 Ariz. at 144 (citation omitted). ¶19 Under A.R.S. § 13-3211(5), “‘[p]rostitution’ means engaging in or agreeing or offering to engage in sexual conduct under a fee arrangement with any person for money or any other valuable consideration.” As stated above, the courts have not recognized any constitutionally protected right to engage in prostitution or commercia | 1 | 1 |
State v. Russogreen1 sentence2019See State v. Russo, 219 Ariz. 223, 225, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). ¶18 A litigant may challenge a statute’s constitutionality for overbreadth under the First Amendment even if his conduct or expression is not constitutionally protected and clearly falls within the statute’s “plainly legitimate sweep.” Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 , 731–32 (2000); State v. Steiger, 162 Ariz. 138 , 143–44 (App. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.green2 sentences1989Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 60 , 96 S.Ct. 2440, 2447 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310, 319-20 (1976). 1989Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 60 , 96 S.Ct. 2440, 2447 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310, 319-20 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Broadrick v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1984Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). 1984Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). | 2 | 1984–1984 |
State Ex Rel. Shufeldt v. Armijo
green
2 sentences1967Shufeldt v. Armijo, 39 N.M. 502 , 50 P.2d 852 (1935) to be appropriate: “We cannot permit a litigant to test the mind of a trial judge like a boy testing the temperature, of the water in the pool with his toe, and if found to his liking, . decides to take a plunge. 1967Shufeldt v. Armijo, 39 N.M. 502 , 50 P.2d 852 (1935) to be appropriate: “We cannot permit a litigant to test the mind of a trial judge like a boy testing the temperature, of the water in the pool with his toe, and if found to his liking, . decides to take a plunge. | 2 | 1966–1967 |
Sherman v. City of Tempe
green
1 sentence2024Kerby v. Griffin, 48 Ariz. 434 , 441–44 (1936) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes governing the pre-election distribution of initiative publicity pamphlets); Tilson v. Mofford, 153 Ariz. 468 , 470–71 (1987) (examining whether an initiative petition complied with certain statutes and constitutional provisions governing “the form of the initiative”); Sherman v. City of Tempe, 202 Ariz. 339 , 340 ¶ 1, 342 ¶¶ 9–11 (2002) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes requiring that municipalities “mail publicity pamphlets ten days before the start of early voting”); Vangild | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Tilson v. Mofford
green
1 sentence2024Kerby v. Griffin, 48 Ariz. 434 , 441–44 (1936) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes governing the pre-election distribution of initiative publicity pamphlets); Tilson v. Mofford, 153 Ariz. 468 , 470–71 (1987) (examining whether an initiative petition complied with certain statutes and constitutional provisions governing “the form of the initiative”); Sherman v. City of Tempe, 202 Ariz. 339 , 340 ¶ 1, 342 ¶¶ 9–11 (2002) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes requiring that municipalities “mail publicity pamphlets ten days before the start of early voting”); Vangild | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kerby v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2024Kerby v. Griffin, 48 Ariz. 434 , 441–44 (1936) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes governing the pre-election distribution of initiative publicity pamphlets); Tilson v. Mofford, 153 Ariz. 468 , 470–71 (1987) (examining whether an initiative petition complied with certain statutes and constitutional provisions governing “the form of the initiative”); Sherman v. City of Tempe, 202 Ariz. 339 , 340 ¶ 1, 342 ¶¶ 9–11 (2002) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes requiring that municipalities “mail publicity pamphlets ten days before the start of early voting”); Vangild | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Pintek v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1967The plunge into the pool of litigation with an affidavit disqualifying the trial judge must be made on a belief of prejudice theretofore entertained, and not on any subsequent discovery of such belief of prejudice resulting from an adverse ruling.” We are familiar with the Arizona cases of Pintek v. Superior Court, etc., 78 Ariz. 179 , 277 P.2d 265 (1954); Hordyk v. Farley, 94 Ariz. 189 , 382 P.2d 668 (1963) and State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App. 258 , 419 P.2d 388 (1966). 1967The plunge into the pool of litigation with an affidavit disqualifying the trial judge must be made on a belief of prejudice theretofore entertained, and not on any subsequent discovery of such belief of prejudice resulting from an adverse ruling.” We are familiar with the Arizona cases of Pintek v. Superior Court, etc., 78 Ariz. 179 , 277 P.2d 265 (1954); Hordyk v. Farley, 94 Ariz. 189 , 382 P.2d 668 (1963) and State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App. 258 , 419 P.2d 388 (1966). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Hordyk v. Farley
green
2 sentences1967The plunge into the pool of litigation with an affidavit disqualifying the trial judge must be made on a belief of prejudice theretofore entertained, and not on any subsequent discovery of such belief of prejudice resulting from an adverse ruling.” We are familiar with the Arizona cases of Pintek v. Superior Court, etc., 78 Ariz. 179 , 277 P.2d 265 (1954); Hordyk v. Farley, 94 Ariz. 189 , 382 P.2d 668 (1963) and State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App. 258 , 419 P.2d 388 (1966). 1967The plunge into the pool of litigation with an affidavit disqualifying the trial judge must be made on a belief of prejudice theretofore entertained, and not on any subsequent discovery of such belief of prejudice resulting from an adverse ruling.” We are familiar with the Arizona cases of Pintek v. Superior Court, etc., 78 Ariz. 179 , 277 P.2d 265 (1954); Hordyk v. Farley, 94 Ariz. 189 , 382 P.2d 668 (1963) and State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App. 258 , 419 P.2d 388 (1966). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
State v. Neil
green
2 sentences1967The plunge into the pool of litigation with an affidavit disqualifying the trial judge must be made on a belief of prejudice theretofore entertained, and not on any subsequent discovery of such belief of prejudice resulting from an adverse ruling.” We are familiar with the Arizona cases of Pintek v. Superior Court, etc., 78 Ariz. 179 , 277 P.2d 265 (1954); Hordyk v. Farley, 94 Ariz. 189 , 382 P.2d 668 (1963) and State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App. 258 , 419 P.2d 388 (1966). 1967The plunge into the pool of litigation with an affidavit disqualifying the trial judge must be made on a belief of prejudice theretofore entertained, and not on any subsequent discovery of such belief of prejudice resulting from an adverse ruling.” We are familiar with the Arizona cases of Pintek v. Superior Court, etc., 78 Ariz. 179 , 277 P.2d 265 (1954); Hordyk v. Farley, 94 Ariz. 189 , 382 P.2d 668 (1963) and State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App. 258 , 419 P.2d 388 (1966). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Ison v. Western Vegetable Distributors
green
2 sentences1950Ison v. Western Vegetable Distributors, 48 Ariz. 104 , 59 P.2d 649 . 1950Ison v. Western Vegetable Distributors, 48 Ariz. 104 , 59 P.2d 649 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.