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 1 courts 1989–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2020Comm’n, 149 Ariz. 480, 483 (1986). ¶40 The State’s motion for partial summary judgment informed Judge Udall that the State had previously sought dismissal of the public records claim but that Judge Ronan had not resolved the matter. 2019Comm’n, 149 Ariz. 480, 483 (1986). ¶39 The State’s motion for partial summary judgment informed Judge Udall that the State previously sought dismissal of the public records claim but that Judge Ronan did not resolve the matter. | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Javier Solisgreen1 sentence2022Bennett, 216 Ariz. at 16 , 18 ¶¶ 1, 8; see also State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 242 , 246 ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (in-state exemplification incorporates attached documents as being true and correct copies). ¶17 Cawthon argues, however, that even assuming the pen pack was a self-authenticated document, it did not fall under the public records exception because the “source of the information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness,” citing Rule 803(8)(b). | 1 | 1 |
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO.green2 sentences2015Airlines, Co., 221 Ariz. 472 , 484 ¶ 31, 212 P.3d 810, 822 (App. 2009) (providing that reports reflecting matters a public official observed or heard and reported pursuant to his duties are admissible in civil cases pursuant to Rule 803(8)(B), the public records exception to the hearsay rule). 2015Airlines, Co., 221 Ariz. 472 , 484 ¶ 31, 212 P.3d 810, 822 (App. 2009) (providing that reports reflecting matters a public official observed or heard and reported pursuant to his duties are admissible in civil cases pursuant to Rule 803(8)(B), the public records exception to the hearsay rule). | 1 | 1 |
William A. BROWN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIERRA NEVADA MEMORIAL MINERS HOSPITAL, Et Al., Defendants-Appelleesgreen1 sentence1994See Brown v. Sierra Nevada Memorial Miners Hosp., 849 F.2d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir.1988) (the assumption supporting the public records exception, that an administrative body’s findings are trustworthy, is substantially weakened when extended to sources outside the agency from which the agency culls the information for its report). | 1 | 1 |
Mathis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.green1 sentence1989Mathis v. Philadelphia Newspa pers, Inc., 455 F.Supp. 406, 417 (E.D.Pa.1978) (affirming summary judgment for defendant newspaper where reporters had relied on an FBI report that incorrectly included the plaintiffs photograph). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Paul v. Oates
green
2 sentences2006Therefore, we must determine whether the QARs, although statutorily characterized as public records under § 28-1323(A)(5), are nonetheless inadmissible under Rule 803(8)(B). ¶38 Bohsancurt cites United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45 (2d Cir.1977), in which the court concluded that chemists of the United States Customs Service were law enforcement personnel and, therefore, that their reports could not be admitted under the public records exception. 2006Therefore, we must determine whether the QARs, although statutorily characterized as public records under § 28- 1323(A)(5), are nonetheless inadmissible under Rule 803(8)(B). 23 ¶38 Bohsancurt cites United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1977), in which the court concluded that chemists of the United States Customs Service were law enforcement personnel and, therefore, that their reports could not be admitted under the public records exception. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2022Bennett, 216 Ariz. at 16 , 18 ¶¶ 1, 8; see also State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 242 , 246 ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (in-state exemplification incorporates attached documents as being true and correct copies). ¶17 Cawthon argues, however, that even assuming the pen pack was a self-authenticated document, it did not fall under the public records exception because the “source of the information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness,” citing Rule 803(8)(b). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
cluster 751858
green
1 sentence2009SWA argues the trial court erred in denying the motion in limine because (1) the public records exception does not apply to preliminary reports like the reports at issue, and (2) the March 15 report lacked trustworthiness. ¶ 30 To support its first contention, SWA relies on Smith v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd., 137 F.3d 859 , 862 (5th Cir.1998), which held that an agency’s interim reports or preliminary memoranda did not fall within the public records exception as embodied by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Woodward v. United States
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 1086-87 . “[D]istrict courts should admit such law-enforcement reports, if at all, only under the public-records exception contained in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).” Id. (citing United States v. Orozco, 590 F.2d 780, 793 (9th Cir.1979)). 2003Id. at 1086-87 . “[D]istrict courts should admit such law-enforcement reports, if at all, only under the public-records exception contained in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).” Id. (citing United States v. Orozco, 590 F.2d 780, 793 (9th Cir.1979)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Berry v. State, Dept. of Corrections
green
2 sentences1996Berry v. Dept. of Corrections, 145 Ariz. 12 , 699 P.2d 387 (App.1985). 1996Berry v. Dept. of Corrections, 145 Ariz. 12 , 699 P.2d 387 (App.1985). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.