propriety instruction (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

propriety instruction in Arizona

10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2015 0 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.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Zaragozagreen
ariz · 2009 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011But although that would be proper if we were reviewing the propriety of the instruction retrospectively and deciding on appeal whether there had been error, see, e.g., State v. Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. 49, ¶ 15 , 209 P.3d 629, 633 (2009), it would not be appropriate to do so here, before the case is tried.

2011But although that would be proper if we were reviewing the propriety of the instruction retrospectively and deciding on appeal whether there had been error, see, e.g., State v. Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. 49, ¶ 15 , 209 P.3d 629, 633 (2009), it would not be appropriate to do so here, before the case is tried.

22
Liteky v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1994 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015“Within reason, a judge does not display bias or cause prejudice when acting sua sponte to control the courtroom and the trial.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 595 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1198 (1993); see also Liteky, 510 U.S. at 556 , 114 S. Ct. at 1157 (“A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and 4 STATE v. SANCHEZ Decision of the Court short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration” do not establish bias or prejudice.).

2015“Within reason, a judge does not display bias or cause prejudice when acting sua sponte to control the courtroom and the trial.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 595 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1198 (1993); see also Liteky, 510 U.S. at 556 , 114 S. Ct. at 1157 (“A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and 4 STATE v. SANCHEZ Decision of the Court short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration” do not establish bias or prejudice.).

11
State v. Biblegreen
ariz · 1993 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015“Within reason, a judge does not display bias or cause prejudice when acting sua sponte to control the courtroom and the trial.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 595 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1198 (1993); see also Liteky, 510 U.S. at 556 , 114 S. Ct. at 1157 (“A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and 4 STATE v. SANCHEZ Decision of the Court short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration” do not establish bias or prejudice.).

2015“Within reason, a judge does not display bias or cause prejudice when acting sua sponte to control the courtroom and the trial.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 595 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1198 (1993); see also Liteky, 510 U.S. at 556 , 114 S. Ct. at 1157 (“A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and 4 STATE v. SANCHEZ Decision of the Court short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration” do not establish bias or prejudice.).

11
State v. Jonesgreen
ariz · 1997 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 392 , 937 P.2d 310, 314 (1997) (“We assume that the legislature accords words their natural and obvious meanings unless otherwise stated.”); In re Manny, 211 Ariz. 301, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d 1111, 1114 (App.2005) (legislature presumed to intend each word and clause to have meaning); Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, 7 Ariz.App. 515, 518 , 441 P.2d 550, 553 (1968) (“The legislature is presumed to express its meaning as clearly as possible ____”).

2009See State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 392 , 937 P.2d 310, 314 (1997) (“We assume that the legislature accords words their natural and obvious meanings unless otherwise stated.”); In re Manny, 211 Ariz. 301, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d 1111, 1114 (App.2005) (legislature presumed to intend each word and clause to have meaning); Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, 7 Ariz.App. 515, 518 , 441 P.2d 550, 553 (1968) (“The legislature is presumed to express its meaning as clearly as possible ____”).

11
Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc.green
arizctapp · 1968 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 392 , 937 P.2d 310, 314 (1997) (“We assume that the legislature accords words their natural and obvious meanings unless otherwise stated.”); In re Manny, 211 Ariz. 301, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d 1111, 1114 (App.2005) (legislature presumed to intend each word and clause to have meaning); Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, 7 Ariz.App. 515, 518 , 441 P.2d 550, 553 (1968) (“The legislature is presumed to express its meaning as clearly as possible ____”).

2009See State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 392 , 937 P.2d 310, 314 (1997) (“We assume that the legislature accords words their natural and obvious meanings unless otherwise stated.”); In re Manny, 211 Ariz. 301, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d 1111, 1114 (App.2005) (legislature presumed to intend each word and clause to have meaning); Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, 7 Ariz.App. 515, 518 , 441 P.2d 550, 553 (1968) (“The legislature is presumed to express its meaning as clearly as possible ____”).

11
State v. Lovegreen
ariz · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009State v. Love, 182 Ariz. 324, 326-27 , 897 P.2d 626, 628-29 (1995) (rejecting suggestion that cases should turn on whether engine is running and vehicle is pulled entirely off the road). ¶ 7 In addressing the propriety of the instruction that was given here, we presume the legislature deliberately used the phrase “actual physical control,” intending each word to be given its natural and obvious meaning.

2009State v. Love, 182 Ariz. 324, 326-27 , 897 P.2d 626, 628-29 (1995) (rejecting suggestion that cases should turn on whether engine is running and vehicle is pulled entirely off the road). ¶ 7 In addressing the propriety of the instruction that was given here, we presume the legislature deliberately used the phrase “actual physical control,” intending each word to be given its natural and obvious meaning.

11
In Re Mannygreen
arizctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 392 , 937 P.2d 310, 314 (1997) (“We assume that the legislature accords words their natural and obvious meanings unless otherwise stated.”); In re Manny, 211 Ariz. 301, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d 1111, 1114 (App.2005) (legislature presumed to intend each word and clause to have meaning); Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, 7 Ariz.App. 515, 518 , 441 P.2d 550, 553 (1968) (“The legislature is presumed to express its meaning as clearly as possible ____”).

2009See State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 392 , 937 P.2d 310, 314 (1997) (“We assume that the legislature accords words their natural and obvious meanings unless otherwise stated.”); In re Manny, 211 Ariz. 301, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d 1111, 1114 (App.2005) (legislature presumed to intend each word and clause to have meaning); Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, 7 Ariz.App. 515, 518 , 441 P.2d 550, 553 (1968) (“The legislature is presumed to express its meaning as clearly as possible ____”).

11
Evans v. Pickettgreen
ariz · 1967 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393, 397 , 430 P.2d 413, 417 (1967) (The test of the propriety of an instruction “is whether the jury would be misled as to the proper rule of law.”) Using this approach, we turn to the subject of the mere presence doctrine.

1996Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393, 397 , 430 P.2d 413, 417 (1967) (The test of the propriety of an instruction “is whether the jury would be misled as to the proper rule of law.”) Using this approach, we turn to the subject of the mere presence doctrine.

11
State v. Edgargreen
ariz · 1980 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987“A specific objection, timely made, allows the trial judge to consider the propriety of the instruction and cure any error therein before [the instruction is] read to the jury.” State v. Edgar, 126 Ariz. 206, 209 , 613 P.2d 1262, 1265 (1980).

1987“A specific objection, timely made, allows the trial judge to consider the propriety of the instruction and cure any error therein before [the instruction is] read to the jury.” State v. Edgar, 126 Ariz. 206, 209 , 613 P.2d 1262, 1265 (1980).

11
Drake v. State of Arizonagreen
ariz · 1939 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980While rule 21.3(c) does not bar raising fundamental error for the first time on appeal, State v. Dippre, 121 Ariz. 596 , 592 P.2d 1252 (1979), we think the error here is not fundamental and does not mandate reversal. *210 II “Any person standing in a confidential or trust relation to another and who by reason thereof comes into possession or control of the latter’s property may embezzle it by fraudulently converting it to a use or purpose other than the one intended.” Drake v. State, 53 Ariz. 93, 97 , 85 P.2d 984, 986 (1939); State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz.App. 248 , 553 P.2d 1233 (1976); A.R.S. § 13

1980While rule 21.3(c) does not bar raising fundamental error for the first time on appeal, State v. Dippre, 121 Ariz. 596 , 592 P.2d 1252 (1979), we think the error here is not fundamental and does not mandate reversal. *210 II “Any person standing in a confidential or trust relation to another and who by reason thereof comes into possession or control of the latter’s property may embezzle it by fraudulently converting it to a use or purpose other than the one intended.” Drake v. State, 53 Ariz. 93, 97 , 85 P.2d 984, 986 (1939); State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz.App. 248 , 553 P.2d 1233 (1976); A.R.S. § 13

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Gomez green
arizctapp · 1976
2 sentences

1980While rule 21.3(c) does not bar raising fundamental error for the first time on appeal, State v. Dippre, 121 Ariz. 596 , 592 P.2d 1252 (1979), we think the error here is not fundamental and does not mandate reversal. *210 II “Any person standing in a confidential or trust relation to another and who by reason thereof comes into possession or control of the latter’s property may embezzle it by fraudulently converting it to a use or purpose other than the one intended.” Drake v. State, 53 Ariz. 93, 97 , 85 P.2d 984, 986 (1939); State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz.App. 248 , 553 P.2d 1233 (1976); A.R.S. § 13

1980While rule 21.3(c) does not bar raising fundamental error for the first time on appeal, State v. Dippre, 121 Ariz. 596 , 592 P.2d 1252 (1979), we think the error here is not fundamental and does not mandate reversal. *210 II “Any person standing in a confidential or trust relation to another and who by reason thereof comes into possession or control of the latter’s property may embezzle it by fraudulently converting it to a use or purpose other than the one intended.” Drake v. State, 53 Ariz. 93, 97 , 85 P.2d 984, 986 (1939); State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz.App. 248 , 553 P.2d 1233 (1976); A.R.S. § 13

11980–1980
State v. Dippre green
ariz · 1979
2 sentences

1980While rule 21.3(c) does not bar raising fundamental error for the first time on appeal, State v. Dippre, 121 Ariz. 596 , 592 P.2d 1252 (1979), we think the error here is not fundamental and does not mandate reversal. *210 II “Any person standing in a confidential or trust relation to another and who by reason thereof comes into possession or control of the latter’s property may embezzle it by fraudulently converting it to a use or purpose other than the one intended.” Drake v. State, 53 Ariz. 93, 97 , 85 P.2d 984, 986 (1939); State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz.App. 248 , 553 P.2d 1233 (1976); A.R.S. § 13

1980While rule 21.3(c) does not bar raising fundamental error for the first time on appeal, State v. Dippre, 121 Ariz. 596 , 592 P.2d 1252 (1979), we think the error here is not fundamental and does not mandate reversal. *210 II “Any person standing in a confidential or trust relation to another and who by reason thereof comes into possession or control of the latter’s property may embezzle it by fraudulently converting it to a use or purpose other than the one intended.” Drake v. State, 53 Ariz. 93, 97 , 85 P.2d 984, 986 (1939); State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz.App. 248 , 553 P.2d 1233 (1976); A.R.S. § 13

11980–1980
State v. Toney green
ariz · 1976
2 sentences

1980Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 21.3(c); State v. Toney, 113 Ariz. 404 , 555 P.2d 650 (1976). Á specific objection, timely made, allows the trial judge to consider the propriety of the instruction and cure any error, therein before it is read to the jury.

1980Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 21.3(c); State v. Toney, 113 Ariz. 404 , 555 P.2d 650 (1976). Á specific objection, timely made, allows the trial judge to consider the propriety of the instruction and cure any error, therein before it is read to the jury.

11980–1980
State v. Carr green
ariz · 1972
2 sentences

1973State v. Carr, 108 Ariz. 203 , 495 P.2d 134 (1972); State v. Beard, 107 Ariz. 388 , 489 P.2d 25 (1971); State v. Godsoe, 107 Ariz. 367 , 489 P.2d 4 (1971).

1973State v. Carr, 108 Ariz. 203 , 495 P.2d 134 (1972); State v. Beard, 107 Ariz. 388 , 489 P.2d 25 (1971); State v. Godsoe, 107 Ariz. 367 , 489 P.2d 4 (1971).

11973–1973
State v. Beard green
ariz · 1971
2 sentences

1973State v. Carr, 108 Ariz. 203 , 495 P.2d 134 (1972); State v. Beard, 107 Ariz. 388 , 489 P.2d 25 (1971); State v. Godsoe, 107 Ariz. 367 , 489 P.2d 4 (1971).

1973State v. Carr, 108 Ariz. 203 , 495 P.2d 134 (1972); State v. Beard, 107 Ariz. 388 , 489 P.2d 25 (1971); State v. Godsoe, 107 Ariz. 367 , 489 P.2d 4 (1971).

11973–1973
State v. Godsoe green
ariz · 1971
2 sentences

1973State v. Carr, 108 Ariz. 203 , 495 P.2d 134 (1972); State v. Beard, 107 Ariz. 388 , 489 P.2d 25 (1971); State v. Godsoe, 107 Ariz. 367 , 489 P.2d 4 (1971).

1973State v. Carr, 108 Ariz. 203 , 495 P.2d 134 (1972); State v. Beard, 107 Ariz. 388 , 489 P.2d 25 (1971); State v. Godsoe, 107 Ariz. 367 , 489 P.2d 4 (1971).

11973–1973
Commonwealth v. Harvard green
mass · 1969
2 sentences

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

11971–1971
Smith v. State green
texcrimapp · 1965
1 sentence

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

11971–1971
United States v. James William Prince green
ca3 · 1959
1 sentence

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

11971–1971
Leona Henderson v. United States green
ca5 · 1959
1 sentence

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

11971–1971
Joseph E. Lewis v. United States green
cadc · 1964
1 sentence

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

11971–1971
Lane v. United States green
scotus · 1965
1 sentence

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

11971–1971
People v. Fortes neutral
nyappdiv · 1965
2 sentences

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

1971Both the defense and the prosecution have submitted respectable authority to support their respective positions as to the propriety of such instruction. 1 The defendant relies on cases such as Lewis v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 145 , 337 F.2d 541 (1964), cert. den. 381 U.S. 920 , 85 *606 S.Ct. 1542, 14 L.Ed.2d 440 (1965) ; Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958) ; United States v. Prince, 264 F.2d 850 (3rd Cir. 1959) ; Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); People v. Fortes, 24 A.D.2d 428 , 260 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1965); and Commonwealth v. Harvard, 356 Mass. 452 ,

11971–1971
Tribolet v. Fowler green
ariz · 1954
2 sentences

1966This principle is established by the case of Wray v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 79 , 308 P.2d 701 (1957), wherein the trial judge declined to enter an order for a change of venue and the Supreme Court concluded its opinion by stating: "It is ordered that a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondents from further exercising jurisdiction over defendant Wray in said three civil actions other than entering an order transferring said causes * * *." On the other hand, it is appropriate to inquire as to the propriety of the order and the case of Tribolet v. Fowler, 77 Ariz. 59 , 266 P.

1966This principle is established by the case of Wray v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 79 , 308 P.2d 701 (1957), wherein the trial judge declined to enter an order for a change of venue and the Supreme Court concluded its opinion by stating: "It is ordered that a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondents from further exercising jurisdiction over defendant Wray in said three civil actions other than entering an order transferring said causes * * *." On the other hand, it is appropriate to inquire as to the propriety of the order and the case of Tribolet v. Fowler, 77 Ariz. 59 , 266 P.

11966–1966
Wray v. Superior Court green
ariz · 1957
2 sentences

1966This principle is established by the case of Wray v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 79 , 308 P.2d 701 (1957), wherein the trial judge declined to enter an order for a change of venue and the Supreme Court concluded its opinion by stating: "It is ordered that a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondents from further exercising jurisdiction over defendant Wray in said three civil actions other than entering an order transferring said causes * * *." On the other hand, it is appropriate to inquire as to the propriety of the order and the case of Tribolet v. Fowler, 77 Ariz. 59 , 266 P.

1966This principle is established by the case of Wray v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 79 , 308 P.2d 701 (1957), wherein the trial judge declined to enter an order for a change of venue and the Supreme Court concluded its opinion by stating: "It is ordered that a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondents from further exercising jurisdiction over defendant Wray in said three civil actions other than entering an order transferring said causes * * *." On the other hand, it is appropriate to inquire as to the propriety of the order and the case of Tribolet v. Fowler, 77 Ariz. 59 , 266 P.

11966–1966

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1381 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 113 (1876–2026) MO 61 (1860–2015) IL 57 (1882–2025) TX 56 (1917–2026) NY 49 (1854–2018) IN 47 (1906–2026) PA 31 (1908–2025) FL 28 (1902–2025) NC 23 (1850–2025) MD 23 (1917–2021) CO 22 (1900–2024) MS 22 (1968–2009) AL 22 (1854–2016) IA 21 (1918–2022) OH 21 (1970–2026) MI 21 (1900–2021) UT 19 (1981–2020) NE 18 (1910–1998) WA 16 (1919–2025) CT 15 (1936–2010) WY 15 (1945–2024) KY 14 (1914–2016) NJ 14 (1884–2021) OR 14 (1898–2023) WV 13 (1882–2025) TN 12 (1934–2025) MA 11 (1961–2023) LA 10 (1981–1995) MN 10 (1932–2013) AZ 10 (1966–2015) KS 10 (1897–2016) NV 9 (1956–2014) SD 9 (1909–2025) VA 9 (1876–1997) MT 9 (1895–1987) RI 9 (1980–2026) ME 8 (1855–1981) AR 7 (1946–2010) OK 6 (1935–1995) GA 6 (1877–2023) NM 6 (1963–2018) DC 5 (1893–1996) HI 5 (1911–2005) DE 5 (1912–2008) VT 5 (1868–2006) NH 4 (1820–1995) ID 4 (1919–2022) AK 3 (1977–1990) WI 3 (1958–1973) ND 3 (1908–1993) SC 2 (1881–2014) VI 2 (1981–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check