10 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regentsgreen2 sentences2015See generally Kromko, 149 Ariz. at 320-21 , 718 P.2d at 479-80 (discussing consideration, but not holding that retention of control over the use of government funds factored into the consideration analysis); Hassell, 172 Ariz. at 368-69 , 837 P.2d at 170-71 (discussing consideration, but not holding that the general Gift Clause analysis — involving cases not within the purview of the Public Trust Doctrine — required conducting a line-item, cost-benefit analysis). 2015See generally Kromko, 149 Ariz. at 320-21 , 718 P.2d at 479-80 (discussing consideration, but not holding that retention of control over the use of government funds factored into the consideration analysis); Hassell, 172 Ariz. at 368-69 , 837 P.2d at 170-71 (discussing consideration, but not holding that the general Gift Clause analysis — involving cases not within the purview of the Public Trust Doctrine — required conducting a line-item, cost-benefit analysis). | 2 | 2 |
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassellgreen2 sentences2015See generally Kromko, 149 Ariz. at 320-21 , 718 P.2d at 479-80 (discussing consideration, but not holding that retention of control over the use of government funds factored into the consideration analysis); Hassell, 172 Ariz. at 368-69 , 837 P.2d at 170-71 (discussing consideration, but not holding that the general Gift Clause analysis — involving cases not within the purview of the Public Trust Doctrine — required conducting a line-item, cost-benefit analysis). 2015See generally Kromko, 149 Ariz. at 320-21 , 718 P.2d at 479-80 (discussing consideration, but not holding that retention of control over the use of government funds factored into the consideration analysis); Hassell, 172 Ariz. at 368-69 , 837 P.2d at 170-71 (discussing consideration, but not holding that the general Gift Clause analysis — involving cases not within the purview of the Public Trust Doctrine — required conducting a line-item, cost-benefit analysis). | 1 | 2 |
Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlatgreen1 sentence2023And in evaluating Neptune’s challenge, we do not defer to Scottsdale’s “assessment of value but should instead identify the fair market value of the benefit provided to [SAC] and then determine proportionality.” Schires, 250 Ariz. at 378, ¶ 23 . ¶34 Neptune contends its higher offer establishes the market value of the license and it cites to cases defining fair market value in the deficiency judgment context for the proposition that its higher bid controls the consideration analysis at the fair market value stage. | 1 | 1 |
TCC ENTERPRISES v. Estate of Ernygreen1 sentence2023See TCC Enters. v. Est. of Erny, 149 Ariz. 257, 258 (App. 1986); see also Honeywell Info. | 1 | 1 |
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L.green1 sentence2018Id. ¶13 “[I]n considering best interests, the court must balance the unfit parent’s ‘diluted’ interest ‘against the independent and often adverse interests of the child in a safe and stable home life.’” Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 4, ¶ 15 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Heath v. Kigergreen1 sentence2011We conclude that the holding in Heath — that “the phrase ‘admitted to bail’ includes those defendants released on their own recognizance” — necessarily also includes defendants released on their own recognizance pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement. 217 Ariz. at 497, ¶ 16, 176 P.3d at 695. ¶ 10 As to Brewer’s argument regarding his right to a hearing, Brewer admits that he did not request a Simpson 2 hearing to contest the trial court’s bail determination in the 2010 ease. 3 Brewer argues such a request was not necessary because he was “entitled to bail as a matter of right.” The state | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fryegreen1 sentence2011We conclude that the holding in Heath — that “the phrase ‘admitted to bail’ includes those defendants released on their own recognizance” — necessarily also includes defendants released on their own recognizance pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement. 217 Ariz. at 497, ¶ 16, 176 P.3d at 695. ¶ 10 As to Brewer’s argument regarding his right to a hearing, Brewer admits that he did not request a Simpson 2 hearing to contest the trial court’s bail determination in the 2010 ease. 3 Brewer argues such a request was not necessary because he was “entitled to bail as a matter of right.” The state | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1993To repeat, the instruction provided: “A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person 14 or more years of age without consent of that person.” The defendant argues that the instruction was not adequate, and that the judge should also have given an instruction like the one found in State v. Johnson: “ ‘Without consent’ means that the Defendant was aware or believed that the other person was coerced by the immediate or threatened use of force ...” 155 Ariz. 23, 25 , 745 P.2d 81, 83 (1987). *309 We first observe that the court in Johnson neve 1993To repeat, the instruction provided: “A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person 14 or more years of age without consent of that person.” The defendant argues that the instruction was not adequate, and that the judge should also have given an instruction like the one found in State v. Johnson: “ ‘Without consent’ means that the Defendant was aware or believed that the other person was coerced by the immediate or threatened use of force ...” 155 Ariz. 23, 25 , 745 P.2d 81, 83 (1987). *309 We first observe that the court in Johnson neve | 1 | 1 |
Ontiveros v. Arizona Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences1989Ontiveros v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 151 Ariz. 542, 543 , 729 P.2d 346, 347 (App.1986). 1989Ontiveros v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 151 Ariz. 542, 543 , 729 P.2d 346, 347 (App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kent K. v. Bobby M.
green
1 sentence2018Id. ¶13 “[I]n considering best interests, the court must balance the unfit parent’s ‘diluted’ interest ‘against the independent and often adverse interests of the child in a safe and stable home life.’” Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 4, ¶ 15 (2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Sugar
green
1 sentence1999The court remanded for a consideration of factors set forth in Weather-ford and directed the trial court to determine if the unauthorized intrusion resulted in substantial prejudice to the defendant and to take appropriate aetion, including dismissal, if necessary. ¶ 42 In State v. Sugar, 417 A.2d at 476 , law enforcement officers unlawfully eavesdropped on two conversations between defendant and his attorney which did not involve defense strategy. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Patterson
green
2 sentences1995Otherwise, attorneys might be driven from court, or deterred from coming to it, or be held in bodily fear while in attendance, and thereby the administration of justice be obstructed. 26 F. at 511 . 1995Otherwise, attorneys might be driven from court, or deterred from coming to it, or be held in bodily fear while in attendance, and thereby the administration of justice be obstructed. 26 F. at 511 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993We, therefore, reverse the award of attorneys’ fees and remand for a hearing consistent with this opinion to determine a reasonable fee based upon a consideration of the factors set forth in China Doll, 138 Ariz. at 187 , 673 P.2d at 931 . 1993We, therefore, reverse the award of attorneys’ fees and remand for a hearing consistent with this opinion to determine a reasonable fee based upon a consideration of the factors set forth in China Doll, 138 Ariz. at 187 , 673 P.2d at 931 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.