73 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1948–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kpnx-Tv v. Superior Ct. in & for Cty. of Yumagreen2 sentences2025It did not expressly identify the scope of review—and at one point alluded to a de-novo standard—but its analysis of a separate videotape at issue also appeared to defer to the state’s “legitimate security concerns.” Id. at 593. 2025It did not expressly identify the scope of review—and at one point alluded to a de-novo standard—but its analysis of a separate videotape at issue also appeared to defer to the state’s “legitimate security concerns.” Id. at 593. | 2 | 2 |
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Ormond Builders, Inc.green2 sentences2013Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Ormond Builders, Inc., 216 Ariz. 379, 383, ¶ 15 , 166 P.3d 934, 938 (App.2007). ¶ 9 The parties to this transaction made an election under I.R.C. § 338(h)(10). 2013Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Ormond Builders, Inc., 216 Ariz. 379, 383, ¶ 15 , 166 P.3d 934, 938 (App.2007). ¶ 9 The parties to this transaction made an election under I.R.C. § 338(h)(10). | 2 | 2 |
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.green2 sentences2012City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172, 178, ¶ 5 , 181 P.3d 219, 225 (App.2008) (statutory construction is a matter of law); Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588, 593, ¶ 9 , 218 P.3d 1045, 1050 (App.2009) (contract interpretation is a matter of law). ¶ 5 It is undisputed that the promissory note signed by homeowners contained an arbitration provision. 2012City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172, 178, ¶ 5 , 181 P.3d 219, 225 (App.2008) (statutory construction is a matter of law); Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588, 593, ¶ 9 , 218 P.3d 1045, 1050 (App.2009) (contract interpretation is a matter of law). ¶ 5 It is undisputed that the promissory note signed by homeowners contained an arbitration provision. | 2 | 2 |
City of Glendale v. Bradshawgreen2 sentences2011See City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 114 Ariz. 236, 237-38 , 560 P.2d 420, 421-22 (1977) (discussing “the wide discretion afforded the trial court in granting a new trial”); Delbridge v. Salt River Project Agrie. 2011See City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 114 Ariz. 236, 237-38 , 560 P.2d 420, 421-22 (1977) (discussing “the wide discretion afforded the trial court in granting a new trial”); Delbridge v. Salt River Project Agrie. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Valverdegreen2 sentences2009In State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, ¶ 12 , 208 P.3d 233, 236 (2009), however, our supreme court affirmed the principle that issues not raised in the trial court are generally forfeited absent fundamental error. 2009In State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, ¶ 12 , 208 P.3d 233, 236 (2009), however, our supreme court affirmed the principle that issues not raised in the trial court are generally forfeited absent fundamental error. | 2 | 2 |
City of Phoenix v. Harnishgreen2 sentences2009City of Phoenix v. Harnish, 214 Ariz. 158, 161, ¶ 6 , 150 P.3d 245, 248 (App.2006). ¶ 10 Appellants urge four bases for finding A.R.S. § 43-1183 unconstitutional, arguing that the tax credit violates: (1) the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) Article 2, Section 12, of the Arizona Constitution; (3) Article 9, Section 10, of the Arizona Constitution; and (4) Sections 20 and 26 of the Arizona Enabling Act, Act of June 20, 1910, ch. 310, 36 Stat. 557 . 2009City of Phoenix v. Harnish, 214 Ariz. 158, 161, ¶ 6 , 150 P.3d 245, 248 (App.2006). ¶ 10 Appellants urge four bases for finding A.R.S. § 43-1183 unconstitutional, arguing that the tax credit violates: (1) the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) Article 2, Section 12, of the Arizona Constitution; (3) Article 9, Section 10, of the Arizona Constitution; and (4) Sections 20 and 26 of the Arizona Enabling Act, Act of June 20, 1910, ch. 310, 36 Stat. 557 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cabanas-Salgadogreen2 sentences2007State v. Cabanas-Salgado, 208 Ariz. 195, 196, ¶ 11 , 92 P.3d 421, 422 (App.2003). ¶ 6 Arizona law proscribes only those offenses targeted by the legislature or other legislative body and identified as crimes in the governing statutes and ordinances. 2007State v. Cabanas-Salgado, 208 Ariz. 195, 196, ¶ 11 , 92 P.3d 421, 422 (App.2003). ¶ 6 Arizona law proscribes only those offenses targeted by the legislature or other legislative body and identified as crimes in the governing statutes and ordinances. | 2 | 2 |
Simms v. Napolitanogreen2 sentences2006In re Stephanie N., 210 Ariz. 317, 318, ¶ 5 , 110 P.3d 1280, 1281 (App.2005); See also Simms v. Napolitano, 205 Ariz. 500, 502, ¶ 9 , 73 P.3d 631, 633 (App.2003). 2006In re Stephanie N., 210 Ariz. 317, 318, ¶ 5 , 110 P.3d 1280, 1281 (App.2005); See also Simms v. Napolitano, 205 Ariz. 500, 502, ¶ 9 , 73 P.3d 631, 633 (App.2003). | 2 | 2 |
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Maranagreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Maraña, 206 Ariz. 557 , ¶ 34, 81 P.3d 1016 , 1025 (App.2003); Golonka v. Gen. 2006See, e.g., Aegis of Ariz., L.L.C. v. Town of Maraña, 206 Ariz. 557 , ¶ 34, 81 P.3d 1016 , 1025 (App.2003); Golonka v. Gen. | 2 | 2 |
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenixgreen2 sentences2006In analyzing this issue, we “review the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict” and will affirm “if any substantial evidence exists permitting reasonable persons to reach such a result.” Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. 51, ¶ 13 , 961 P.2d at 451 . 8 Both divisions of this court have applied a de novo standard of review in this context. 2006In analyzing this issue, we “review the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict” and will affirm “if any substantial evidence exists permitting reasonable persons to reach such a result.” Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. 51, ¶ 13 , 961 P.2d at 451 . 8 Both divisions of this court have applied a de novo standard of review in this context. | 1 | 2 |
Anton v. Industrial Commission of Arizonagreen2 sentences1992Citing Anton v. Industrial Commission, 141 Ariz. 566 , 688 P.2d 192 (App.1984), the Special Fund and Reeder then contend that a de novo standard of review applies to the ALJ’s conclusion that London was Reeder’s employer, while Brad’s argues that the entire determination is a factual one, citing Hunt Building Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 148 Ariz. 102 , 713 P.2d 303 (1986). 1992Citing Anton v. Industrial Commission, 141 Ariz. 566 , 688 P.2d 192 (App.1984), the Special Fund and Reeder then contend that a de novo standard of review applies to the ALJ’s conclusion that London was Reeder’s employer, while Brad’s argues that the entire determination is a factual one, citing Hunt Building Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 148 Ariz. 102 , 713 P.2d 303 (1986). | 1 | 2 |
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.green1 sentence2025Decision of the Court ¶19 When an issue involves "a matter of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review." City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 209 Ariz. 544, 547, ¶ 8 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Pierce v. Underwoodgreen1 sentence2023See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558 (1988) (“For some few trial court determinations, the question of what is the standard of appellate review is answered by relatively explicit statutory command,” however, “[f]or most others, the answer is provided by a long history of appellate practice.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mendoza-Ruizgreen1 sentence2023See State v. Mendoza-Ruiz, 225 Ariz. 473 , 475 ¶ 6 (App. 2010) (“[W]e review the superior court’s legal decisions de novo.”). ¶11 Colorado argues Juror #8’s answers to certain questions make it objectively clear she was unable to judge his case without bias. | 1 | 1 |
Pridgeon v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2023Pridgeon v. LaMarca, 134 Ariz. 177, 179 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Duckstein v. Wolfgreen1 sentence2022DISCUSSION ¶5 Father appears to argue the authorization orders were not supported by the evidence.3 Because the relevant facts are not disputed, we assume a de novo standard applies to our review.4 See Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227, 231, ¶ 8 (App. 2012) (“We review . . . questions involving the application and interpretation of court rules de novo.”). | 1 | 1 |
Frey v. Stonemangreen1 sentence2022See Frey v. Stoneman, 150 Ariz. 106, 109 (1986) (“Because evidence extrinsic to the pleadings was offered to and relied on by the trial judge in making this decision, the motion to dismiss should have been treated as one for summary judgment.”); State Comp. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeaugreen1 sentence2020State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 461, ¶ 168 (2016); State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr.green1 sentence2020State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 461, ¶ 168 (2016); State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Reah v. Jupingreen1 sentence2019Prevailing on an assault or battery claim does not necessarily lead to punitive damages; the plaintiff also must show the defendant acted “wantonly, maliciously, or under circumstances of aggravation.” Reah v. Jupin, 68 Ariz. 335, 337 (1949), 1 Hart contends the standard of review is “unclear,” arguing this court applied a de novo standard of review in Felipe v. Theme Tech. | 1 | 1 |
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp.green1 sentence2019Corp., 235 Ariz. 520, 528, ¶ 31 (App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Obregon v. Industrial Commission of Arizonagreen1 sentence2018Comm’n, 217 Ariz. 612, 614, ¶ 9 (App. 2008) (citing Naslund v. Indus. | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Bakergreen1 sentence2018Co. v. Ridgely, 214 Ariz. 440, 442, ¶ 7 (App. 2007).2 ¶6 Miller next contends that the seizures of funds from his inmate trust account on July 22, 2016 and January 30, 2017 violated A.R.S. § 13-3918, which, he argues, rendered the seizure warrant expired and void.3 “We apply a de novo standard of review to issues of statutory issues raised on appeal.” Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995), citing ARCAP 11. | 1 | 1 |
Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ridgelygreen1 sentence2018Co. v. Ridgely, 214 Ariz. 440, 442, ¶ 7 (App. 2007).2 ¶6 Miller next contends that the seizures of funds from his inmate trust account on July 22, 2016 and January 30, 2017 violated A.R.S. § 13-3918, which, he argues, rendered the seizure warrant expired and void.3 “We apply a de novo standard of review to issues of statutory issues raised on appeal.” Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995), citing ARCAP 11. | 1 | 1 |
| Clifford J Ochser v. Gerard funk/anthony Cruzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Imbler v. Pachtmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Mulleneaux v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Mulleneaux v. State, 190 Ariz. 535, 538 , 950 P.2d 1156, 1159 (App. 1997) (citation omitted). ¶8 The issue presented in this case is whether A.R.S. § 12-821.01 required Allen to file a notice of claim. 2015Mulleneaux v. State, 190 Ariz. 535, 538 , 950 P.2d 1156, 1159 (App. 1997) (citation omitted). ¶8 The issue presented in this case is whether A.R.S. § 12-821.01 required Allen to file a notice of claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Coleman v. City of Mesagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Russogreen | 1 | 1 |
| DeVries v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hawkins v. Allstate Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO.green | 1 | 1 |
| Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Barrazagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Caseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bentley v. Building Our Futuregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lyons v. State Board of Equalizationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sensing v. Harrisgreen | 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. Flores
green
2 sentences2009The court in Flores, 218 Ariz. 407, ¶ 6 , 188 P.3d at 708-09 , applied a de novo standard even though the issue of subject matter jurisdiction had not been raised in the trial court during the taking of the defendant’s guilty plea. 2009The court in Flores, 218 Ariz. 407, ¶ 6 , 188 P.3d at 708-09 , applied a de novo standard even though the issue of subject matter jurisdiction had not been raised in the trial court during the taking of the defendant’s guilty plea. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Korzuch
green
2 sentences2002State v. Korzuch, 186 Ariz. 190 , 920 P.2d 312 (1996); State v. Evenson, 201 Ariz. 209 , 33 P.3d 780 (App.2001). 2002State v. Korzuch, 186 Ariz. 190 , 920 P.2d 312 (1996); State v. Evenson, 201 Ariz. 209 , 33 P.3d 780 (App.2001). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Evenson
green
2 sentences2002State v. Korzuch, 186 Ariz. 190 , 920 P.2d 312 (1996); State v. Evenson, 201 Ariz. 209 , 33 P.3d 780 (App.2001). 2002State v. Korzuch, 186 Ariz. 190 , 920 P.2d 312 (1996); State v. Evenson, 201 Ariz. 209 , 33 P.3d 780 (App.2001). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Moody
green
1 sentence2025The superior court did not improperly apply an aggravating circumstance. ¶33 The court applies a de novo standard of review because it involves the interpretation of a statute and the superior court’s application of law. 3 SL Fam., LLC v. State, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 12, 560 P.3d 349 , 352 (App. 2024) (discussing standard of review for interpreting statutes); State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424 , 445 ¶ 62 (2004) (discussing standard of review for purely legal issues). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bayless v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
green
1 sentence2020Id. ¶13 Issue preclusion applies only if an issue was litigated, determined, and the determination was necessary to the decision. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re Estate of Newman green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Rawlings v. Apodaca green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Glenn v. Washington County neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Clemons v. Mississippi green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. White green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Bible green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Calik v. Kongable green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Ornelas v. United States green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.