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 1986–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aussiegreen1 sentence2024FISH/STATE Opinion of the Court the state constitutional requirement of trial in the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, the result conferring venue must be an element of the offense.” 175 Ariz. 125, 127 (App. 1993) (quotation omitted); see also Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24 (“In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right . . . to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diazgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Diaz, 223 Ariz. 358, ¶ 11 , 224 P.3d 174, 176-77 (2010) (stating appellant must first establish error under any standard of appellate review). ¶ 4 Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, suppression was not required here because, as Birehfield held, a warrantless breath test is allowed as a search incident to a lawful DUI arrest. — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. at 2184 . 2016See State v. Diaz, 223 Ariz. 358, ¶ 11 , 224 P.3d 174, 176-77 (2010) (stating appellant must first establish error under any standard of appellate review). ¶ 4 Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, suppression was not required here because, as Birehfield held, a warrantless breath test is allowed as a search incident to a lawful DUI arrest. — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. at 2184 . | 1 | 1 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Diaz, 223 Ariz. 358, ¶ 11 , 224 P.3d 174, 176-77 (2010) (stating appellant must first establish error under any standard of appellate review). ¶ 4 Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, suppression was not required here because, as Birehfield held, a warrantless breath test is allowed as a search incident to a lawful DUI arrest. — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. at 2184 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Calabresegreen2 sentences2011State v. Calabrese, 157 Ariz. 189, 191 , 755 P.2d 1177, 1179 (App.1988) (failure to raise state constitutional claim below waives issue on appeal). 2011State v. Calabrese, 157 Ariz. 189, 191 , 755 P.2d 1177, 1179 (App.1988) (failure to raise state constitutional claim below waives issue on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Quinton v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1998Because the double-jeopardy provision of the Arizona Constitution is construed consistently with its federal analogue, see Quinton v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 545, 550 , 815 P.2d 914, 919 (App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 , 112 S.Ct. 1295 , 117 L.Ed.2d 518 (1992), the Dowling analysis arguably would be dispositive of the defendant’s state constitutional claim as well. 1998Because the double-jeopardy provision of the Arizona Constitution is construed consistently with its federal analogue, see Quinton v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 545, 550 , 815 P.2d 914, 919 (App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 , 112 S.Ct. 1295 , 117 L.Ed.2d 518 (1992), the Dowling analysis arguably would be dispositive of the defendant’s state constitutional claim as well. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biblegreen2 sentences1997State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 599 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1202 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1578 , 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994) (once defendant's property is legally in possession of law-enforcement agents, agents need no warrant to search property; "this type of a warrantless seizure does not violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights."). [5] The defendant argues that Currier did not conduct the search pursuant to the warrant since he failed to inventory the contents of the bag and he was not able to testify to anything else in the bag. 1997State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 599 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1202 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1578 , 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994) (once defendant's property is legally in possession of law-enforcement agents, agents need no warrant to search property; "this type of a warrantless seizure does not violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights."). [5] The defendant argues that Currier did not conduct the search pursuant to the warrant since he failed to inventory the contents of the bag and he was not able to testify to anything else in the bag. | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeWittgreen2 sentences1996Id. at 355, 357 , 897 P.2d at 657, 659 (Grant, J., dissenting). 1996Id. at 355, 357 , 897 P.2d at 657, 659 (Grant, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Burrows v. City of Keenegreen2 sentences1986A state constitutional analysis of this question is not unusual, see Burrows v. City of Keene, 121 N.H. 590 , 432 A.2d 15, 22 (1981), and is quite appropriate in light of our unique constitutional provision. 1986A state constitutional analysis of this question is not unusual, see Burrows v. City of Keene, 121 N.H. 590 , 432 A.2d 15, 22 (1981), and is quite appropriate in light of our unique constitutional provision. | 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 v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2020See State v. Jean, 243 Ariz. 331 , 341–42 ¶ 39 (2018) (stating that a party forfeits a state constitutional claim by “[m]erely referring to the Arizona Constitution” and failing to develop the argument); State v. Fisher, 226 Ariz. 563 , 565 n.3 (2011) (declining to address a state constitutional claim where the party failed to develop a “separate argument based on th[e] provision or explain how [the] analysis” should differ from federal jurisprudence). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Eagle
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 31, ¶ 14, 992 P.2d at 1126 . *368 ¶ 6 Turning, then, to the remaining issue, when considering a Batson challenge, we will defer to the trial court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Sky Chefs, Inc. v. Dias
green
2 sentences1998Because the double-jeopardy provision of the Arizona Constitution is construed consistently with its federal analogue, see Quinton v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 545, 550 , 815 P.2d 914, 919 (App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 , 112 S.Ct. 1295 , 117 L.Ed.2d 518 (1992), the Dowling analysis arguably would be dispositive of the defendant’s state constitutional claim as well. 1998Because the double-jeopardy provision of the Arizona Constitution is construed consistently with its federal analogue, see Quinton v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 545, 550 , 815 P.2d 914, 919 (App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 , 112 S.Ct. 1295 , 117 L.Ed.2d 518 (1992), the Dowling analysis arguably would be dispositive of the defendant's state constitutional claim as well. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Transcontinental Corp.
green
2 sentences1998Because the double-jeopardy provision of the Arizona Constitution is construed consistently with its federal analogue, see Quinton v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 545, 550 , 815 P.2d 914, 919 (App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 , 112 S.Ct. 1295 , 117 L.Ed.2d 518 (1992), the Dowling analysis arguably would be dispositive of the defendant’s state constitutional claim as well. 1998Because the double-jeopardy provision of the Arizona Constitution is construed consistently with its federal analogue, see Quinton v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 545, 550 , 815 P.2d 914, 919 (App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 , 112 S.Ct. 1295 , 117 L.Ed.2d 518 (1992), the Dowling analysis arguably would be dispositive of the defendant's state constitutional claim as well. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Bolt
green
2 sentences1997The independent source doctrine may be applied under the Arizona constitutional provision, and exclusion of evidence obtained under a legal warrant need not be required because of the prior state constitutional violation.” Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 269 , 689 P.2d at 528 . . 1997The independent source doctrine may be applied under the Arizona constitutional provision, and exclusion of evidence obtained under a legal warrant need not be required because of the prior state constitutional violation.” Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 269 , 689 P.2d at 528 . . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gosch v. Texas
green
1 sentence1997State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 599 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1202 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1578 , 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994) (once defendant's property is legally in possession of law-enforcement agents, agents need no warrant to search property; "this type of a warrantless seizure does not violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights."). [5] The defendant argues that Currier did not conduct the search pursuant to the warrant since he failed to inventory the contents of the bag and he was not able to testify to anything else in the bag. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Youngblood
green
2 sentences1993Since there is no error, there is no occasion to reach the doctrine of fundamental error. [3] The dissent characterizes the defendant's failure to raise the state constitutional claim as the omission of a "citation." Post, at 510, 844 P.2d at 1160 . 1993It is difficult to square this characterization with the dissent's acknowledgment that it is "this court's ultimate responsibility to interpret the meaning and application of the Arizona Constitution in light of our own reading of each clause." Post, at 508, 844 P.2d at 1158 . | 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.