11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
MacRae v. MacRaegreen2 sentences2019“It is a cardinal rule of equity that he who comes into a court of equity seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands.” MacRae v. MacRae, 57 Ariz. 157, 161 (1941). “[I]t is the moral intent of the party seeking relief, and not the actual injury done, that is controlling.” Weiner v. Romley, 94 Ariz. 40 , 42–43 (1963). 2019“It is a cardinal rule of equity that he who comes into a court of equity seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands.” MacRae v. MacRae, 57 Ariz. 157, 161 (1941). “[I]t is the moral intent of the party seeking relief, and not the actual injury done, that is controlling.” Weiner v. Romley, 94 Ariz. 40 , 42–43 (1963). | 2 | 2 |
Ezell v. Quongreen2 sentences2022See Ezell, 224 Ariz. at 538, ¶ 26 (noting for the doctrine of unclean hands to apply, there must be evidence that the party seeking relief, acted with "bad faith" or "unconscionable conduct" toward the party asserting the defense). 2022See Ezell, 224 Ariz. at 538, ¶ 26 (noting for the doctrine of unclean hands to apply, there must be evidence that the party seeking relief, acted with "bad faith" or "unconscionable conduct" toward the party asserting the defense). | 1 | 1 |
Dollar Systems, Inc. v. Avcar Leasing Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2022See also Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Avcar Leasing Sys., Inc., 890 F.2d 165 , 173 (9th Cir. 1989) ("The application of the unclean hands doctrine raises primarily a question of fact."). 3. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Dependency Action No. 93511green2 sentences2010ANALYSIS ¶ 14 Appellant argues that the juvenile court erred in granting Mother's motion for relief from the court's judgment of paternity and denying the motion for change in physical custody to Appellant. ¶ 15 Because the juvenile court is "in the best position to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of the parties, observe the parties, and make appropriate factual findings," Pima County Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543, 546 , 744 P.2d 455, 458 (App. 1987), this court will not disturb the court's disposition in a dependency action unless its findings of fact were clearly erron 2010ANALYSIS ¶ 14 Appellant argues that the juvenile court erred in granting Mother's motion for relief from the court's judgment of paternity and denying the motion for change in physical custody to Appellant. ¶ 15 Because the juvenile court is "in the best position to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of the parties, observe the parties, and make appropriate factual findings," Pima County Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543, 546 , 744 P.2d 455, 458 (App. 1987), this court will not disturb the court's disposition in a dependency action unless its findings of fact were clearly erron | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weiner v. Romley
green
2 sentences2019“It is a cardinal rule of equity that he who comes into a court of equity seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands.” MacRae v. MacRae, 57 Ariz. 157, 161 (1941). “[I]t is the moral intent of the party seeking relief, and not the actual injury done, that is controlling.” Weiner v. Romley, 94 Ariz. 40 , 42–43 (1963). 2019“It is a cardinal rule of equity that he who comes into a court of equity seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands.” MacRae v. MacRae, 57 Ariz. 157, 161 (1941). “[I]t is the moral intent of the party seeking relief, and not the actual injury done, that is controlling.” Weiner v. Romley, 94 Ariz. 40 , 42–43 (1963). | 3 | 2009–2019 |
New York Times Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence2017But even accepting for purposes of argument that the public interest might allow a prior restraint on disclosure of documents obtained from a public entity's files, see New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 4 WOODWARD v. AZ CORP COMM Decision of the Court (1971), the superior court made no findings that might support its order restraining Woodward from making the documents public. ¶12 The Commission also argues the unclean hands doctrine precludes Woodward from "reap[ing] the benefit" of the First Amendment, contending that Woodward disclosed confidential information in the 36- page fi | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Vulcan Detinning Co. v. American Can Co.
green
2 sentences2009Id. ¶ 28 In Vulcan, a company moved to enjoin another from using its secret manufacturing process, but the trial court dismissed the action based on unclean hands. 67 A. at 340 . 2009Id. ¶ 29 While no Arizona court has addressed the question of when an agent’s acts may be attributed to the principal for purposes of equitable defenses, our supreme court has established the rule that equitable relief may be denied to a party under the unclean hands doctrine only if the party has engaged in “willful” misconduct. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People Ex Rel. Meyer v. Nein
green
2 sentences1996Nein, 154 Ill.Dec. at 436-37 , 568 N.E.2d at 436-37 . 1996Nein, 154 Ill.Dec. at 436-37 , 568 N.E.2d at 436-37 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Dawson v. McNaney
green
2 sentences1987THE "UNCLEAN HANDS” DEFENSE The trial court ruled that SMHS was not the proper party to assert the unclean hands defense because SMHS itself had “set the judicial machinery in motion.” Dawson v. McNaney, 71 Ariz. 79 , 223 P.2d 907 (1950). 1987THE "UNCLEAN HANDS” DEFENSE The trial court ruled that SMHS was not the proper party to assert the unclean hands defense because SMHS itself had “set the judicial machinery in motion.” Dawson v. McNaney, 71 Ariz. 79 , 223 P.2d 907 (1950). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Matlow v. Matlow
green
2 sentences1970The doctrine of recrimination, like the doctrine of unclean hands of which it is a .part, is not a mechanical doctrine but an equitable principle to be applied to the facts of each case and with a consideration for the interests of the public.” (Emphasis in original). ( 89 Ariz. at 296-297 , 361 P.2d at 650 ). 1970The doctrine of recrimination, like the doctrine of unclean hands of which it is a .part, is not a mechanical doctrine but an equitable principle to be applied to the facts of each case and with a consideration for the interests of the public.” (Emphasis in original). ( 89 Ariz. at 296-297 , 361 P.2d at 650 ). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
In Re Guardianship of Rodgers
green
2 sentences1969While other matters were, discussed, and the ruling based primarily on the change of circumstances, this was in effect the holding in In re Guardianship of Rodgers, 100 Ariz. 269 , 413 P.2d 744 . 1969While other matters were, discussed, and the ruling based primarily on the change of circumstances, this was in effect the holding in In re Guardianship of Rodgers, 100 Ariz. 269 , 413 P.2d 744 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
De Burgh v. De Burgh
green
2 sentences1961DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 39 Cal.2d 858 , 250 P. 2d 598 . 1961DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 39 Cal.2d 858 , 250 P. 2d 598 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.