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.
10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 4 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. Aguilargreen2 sentences2025Brutinel, pursuant to article 6, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, Justice John Pelander (Retired) of the Arizona Supreme Court was designated to sit in this matter. 1 Relatedly, we note that “[a]lthough a comment may clarify a rule’s ambiguous language, a comment cannot otherwise alter the clear text of a rule.” State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40 , 48 ¶ 26 (2004). ¶4 For the reasons set forth below, we hold that a successive IAC claim based on a defense counsel’s woefully inadequate communication of a plea offer under the circumstances present here implicates a constitutional right of great 2023See State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, ¶ 26 (2004) (“Although a comment may clarify a rule’s ambiguous language, a comment cannot otherwise alter the clear text of a rule.”). | 8 | 9 |
State v. Laversgreen2 sentences2023Fournier was required to show that the prospective juror was “incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” State v. Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. 197 , ¶ 21 (2018) (quoting State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 390 (1991)); Ariz. R. 2023Fournier was required to show that the prospective juror was “incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” State v. Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. 197 , ¶ 21 (2018) (quoting State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 390 (1991)); Ariz. R. | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Bank of Californiagreen2 sentences2004Cf. Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. 470, 471 , 808 P.2d 1222, 1223 (1991) (stating that “we follow fundamental principles of statutory construction, the cornerstone of which is the rule that the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction”); Wright v. Bank of Cal. Nat’l Ass’n, 276 Cal. App.2d 485 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 11, 14 (Ct.App.1969) (noting that the “plain language of the [California Commercial Code] cannot be varied by reference to the comments” to either the California C 2004Cf. Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. 470, 471 , 808 P.2d 1222, 1223 (1991) (stating that “we follow fundamental principles of statutory construction, the cornerstone of which is the rule that the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction”); Wright v. Bank of Cal. Nat’l Ass’n, 276 Cal. App.2d 485 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 11, 14 (Ct.App.1969) (noting that the “plain language of the [California Commercial Code] cannot be varied by reference to the comments” to either the California C | 1 | 1 |
Janson v. Christensengreen2 sentences2004Cf. Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. 470, 471 , 808 P.2d 1222, 1223 (1991) (stating that “we follow fundamental principles of statutory construction, the cornerstone of which is the rule that the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction”); Wright v. Bank of Cal. Nat’l Ass’n, 276 Cal. App.2d 485 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 11, 14 (Ct.App.1969) (noting that the “plain language of the [California Commercial Code] cannot be varied by reference to the comments” to either the California C 2004Cf. Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. 470, 471 , 808 P.2d 1222, 1223 (1991) (stating that “we follow fundamental principles of statutory construction, the cornerstone of which is the rule that the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction”); Wright v. Bank of Cal. Nat’l Ass’n, 276 Cal. App.2d 485 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 11, 14 (Ct.App.1969) (noting that the “plain language of the [California Commercial Code] cannot be varied by reference to the comments” to either the California C | 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 of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela
green
2 sentences2023Fournier was required to show that the prospective juror was “incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” State v. Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. 197 , ¶ 21 (2018) (quoting State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 390 (1991)); Ariz. R. 2023Fournier was required to show that the prospective juror was “incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” State v. Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. 197 , ¶ 21 (2018) (quoting State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 390 (1991)); Ariz. R. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
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.