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 1967–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2016Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding ... is notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”). ¶ 11 Foster Parents further argue the superior court violated their due-process rights when it set an evidentiary hearing but then would not allow them to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. 2016Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding ... is notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”). ¶ 11 Foster Parents further argue the superior court violated their due-process rights when it set an evidentiary hearing but then would not allow them to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. | 4 | 9 |
Huck v. Haralambiegreen1 sentence2021See, e.g., Huck v. Haralambie, 122 Ariz. 63, 65 (1979) (“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.