10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2010Id. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . ¶ 10 Although Mathews involved the deprivation of a property interest, id. at 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied Mathews in cases involving important liberty interests, see, e.g., Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 225 , 125 S.Ct. 2384 , 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (using Mathews analysis to determine due process required before assigning an inmate to a high-security facility); Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 528-29 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 (using Mathews analysis to determine scope of process due to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants). 2010Id. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . ¶ 10 Although Mathews involved the deprivation of a property interest, id. at 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied Mathews in cases involving important liberty interests, see, e.g., Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 225 , 125 S.Ct. 2384 , 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (using Mathews analysis to determine due process required before assigning an inmate to a high-security facility); Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 528-29 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 (using Mathews analysis to determine scope of process due to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants). | 1 | 4 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2019See Santosky , 455 U.S. at 754 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 (applying Mathews factors to determine the appropriate burden of proof in child termination cases). 2019See Santosky , 455 U.S. at 754 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 (applying Mathews factors to determine the appropriate burden of proof in child termination cases). | 1 | 3 |
Kent K. v. Bobby M.green2 sentences2021Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300, 305, ¶ 11 (App. 2014); see also Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 286, ¶ 33 (2005) (applying the Mathews test to a privately-initiated termination action). 2021Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300, 305, ¶ 11 (App. 2014); see also Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 286, ¶ 33 (2005) (applying the Mathews test to a privately-initiated termination action). | 1 | 2 |
Department of Child Safety v. Beenegreen2 sentences2021Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300, 305, ¶ 11 (App. 2014); see also Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 286, ¶ 33 (2005) (applying the Mathews test to a privately-initiated termination action). 2021Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300, 305, ¶ 11 (App. 2014); see also Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 286, ¶ 33 (2005) (applying the Mathews test to a privately-initiated termination action). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Soulegreen2 sentences2016Instead, the State’s justifications are feeble: first, “the Mathews rule fosters perjury and more litigation,” because “[t]o allow a defendant to testify as to two defenses that cannot both be true is equivalent to sanctioning a defendant’s perjury”; and second, “allowing inconsistent defenses may confuse the jury.” Soule, 168 Ariz. at 136 , 811 P.2d at 1073 . ¶43 Those justifications repeatedly have been debunked. 2016Instead, the State’s justifications are feeble: first, “the Mathews rule fosters perjury and more litigation,” because “[t]o allow a defendant to testify as to two defenses that cannot both be true is equivalent to sanctioning a defendant’s perjury”; and second, “allowing inconsistent defenses may confuse the jury.” Soule, 168 Ariz. at 136 , 811 P.2d at 1073 . ¶43 Those justifications repeatedly have been debunked. | 1 | 1 |
In Matter of WJCgreen2 sentences2010See In re W.J.C., 124 Wis.2d 238 , 369 N.W.2d 162, 163-64 (Wis. Ct.App.1985) (applying Mathews analysis to civil commitment proceedings). 2010See In re W.J.C., 124 Wis.2d 238 , 369 N.W.2d 162, 163-64 (Wis. Ct.App.1985) (applying Mathews analysis to civil commitment proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Mendonza v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1999See also Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 443 , 112 S.Ct. 2572, 2576 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992) (holding that the Mathews test “does not provide the appropriate framework for assessing the validity of state procedural rules which ... are part of the criminal process”); Mendonza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 771 , 673 N.E.2d 22, 28 (1996) (“The looming danger in [concluding that] any and all deprivations of liberty need only be tested by the test of due process in general ..., [see] Mathews v. Eldridge ..., is that the distinctive nature of the procedural guarantees of the criminal process enshri 1999See also Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 443 , 112 S.Ct. 2572, 2576 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992) (holding that the Mathews test “does not provide the appropriate framework for assessing the validity of state procedural rules which ... are part of the criminal process”); Mendonza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 771 , 673 N.E.2d 22, 28 (1996) (“The looming danger in [concluding that] any and all deprivations of liberty need only be tested by the test of due process in general ..., [see] Mathews v. Eldridge ..., is that the distinctive nature of the procedural guarantees of the criminal process enshri | 1 | 1 |
Medina v. Californiagreen2 sentences1999See also Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 443 , 112 S.Ct. 2572, 2576 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992) (holding that the Mathews test “does not provide the appropriate framework for assessing the validity of state procedural rules which ... are part of the criminal process”); Mendonza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 771 , 673 N.E.2d 22, 28 (1996) (“The looming danger in [concluding that] any and all deprivations of liberty need only be tested by the test of due process in general ..., [see] Mathews v. Eldridge ..., is that the distinctive nature of the procedural guarantees of the criminal process enshri 1999See also Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 443 , 112 S.Ct. 2572, 2576 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992) (holding that the Mathews test “does not provide the appropriate framework for assessing the validity of state procedural rules which ... are part of the criminal process”); Mendonza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 771 , 673 N.E.2d 22, 28 (1996) (“The looming danger in [concluding that] any and all deprivations of liberty need only be tested by the test of due process in general ..., [see] Mathews v. Eldridge ..., is that the distinctive nature of the procedural guarantees of the criminal process enshri | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.
green
2 sentences2005Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981)). ¶ 41 After balancing these three Mathews factors, we conclude that due process does not require imposing the clear and convincing evidence standard for an inquiry into the best interests of the child pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533.B. 2005Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981)). ¶ 41 After balancing these three Mathews factors, we conclude that due process does not require imposing the clear and convincing evidence standard for an inquiry into the best interests of the child pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533.B. | 2 | 2005–2019 |
In Re Mh2010-002637
green
2 sentences2025MH2010-002637, 228 Ariz. at 79 3 IN RE: MH2025-001114 Decision of the Court ¶¶ 16-17 (applying the Mathews test in Arizona civil commitment case). 2025MH2010-002637, 228 Ariz. at 79 3 IN RE: MH2025-001114 Decision of the Court ¶¶ 16-17 (applying the Mathews test in Arizona civil commitment case). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sorrells v. United States
green
2 sentences2016As the Court remarked in Sorrells, 287 U.S. at 451 , 53 S.Ct. 210 , “Objections to the defense of entrapment are also urged upon practical grounds. 2016As the Court remarked in Sorrells, 287 U.S. at 451 , 53 S.Ct. 210 , “Objections to the defense of entrapment are also urged upon practical grounds. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . ¶ 10 Although Mathews involved the deprivation of a property interest, id. at 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied Mathews in cases involving important liberty interests, see, e.g., Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 225 , 125 S.Ct. 2384 , 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (using Mathews analysis to determine due process required before assigning an inmate to a high-security facility); Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 528-29 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 (using Mathews analysis to determine scope of process due to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants). 2010Id. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . ¶ 10 Although Mathews involved the deprivation of a property interest, id. at 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied Mathews in cases involving important liberty interests, see, e.g., Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 225 , 125 S.Ct. 2384 , 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (using Mathews analysis to determine due process required before assigning an inmate to a high-security facility); Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 528-29 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 (using Mathews analysis to determine scope of process due to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wilkinson v. Austin
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . ¶ 10 Although Mathews involved the deprivation of a property interest, id. at 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied Mathews in cases involving important liberty interests, see, e.g., Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 225 , 125 S.Ct. 2384 , 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (using Mathews analysis to determine due process required before assigning an inmate to a high-security facility); Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 528-29 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 (using Mathews analysis to determine scope of process due to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants). 2010Id. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . ¶ 10 Although Mathews involved the deprivation of a property interest, id. at 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied Mathews in cases involving important liberty interests, see, e.g., Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 225 , 125 S.Ct. 2384 , 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (using Mathews analysis to determine due process required before assigning an inmate to a high-security facility); Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 528-29 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 (using Mathews analysis to determine scope of process due to United States citizens detained as enemy combatants). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
2 sentences2005Under Mathews , determining the minimum standard of proof required to afford due process involves consideration of three factors: “First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . ¶ 2005Under Mathews , determining the minimum standard of proof required to afford due process involves consideration of three factors: “First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . ¶ | 1 | 2005–2005 |
R. G. Britton, Appellant-Cross v. Harold Eugene Rogers, Appellee-Cross
green
2 sentences1999Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 902-03 . ¶ 7 The court of appeals, relying on Britton v. Rogers, 631 F.2d 572 (8th Cir.1980), applied the Mathews test to determine whether A.R.S. § 13-703.A violated appellant’s right to due process. 1999Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 902-03 . ¶ 7 The court of appeals, relying on Britton v. Rogers, 631 F.2d 572 (8th Cir.1980), applied the Mathews test to determine whether A.R.S. § 13-703.A violated appellant’s right to due process. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.