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.
9 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgadogreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 12 , 303 P.3d 76, 80-81 (App.2013) (medical doctor with extensive experience in emergency medicine had expertise to opine whether victim’s injuries were consistent with strangulation). 2014See, e.g., State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 12 , 303 P.3d 76, 80-81 (App.2013) (medical doctor with extensive experience in emergency medicine had expertise to opine whether victim’s injuries were consistent with strangulation). | 1 | 1 |
Upjohn Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993The privilege only protects disclosure of communications; it does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney[.] 449 U.S. at 395 , 101 S.Ct. at 685 (emphasis added). *443 The majority also asserts that the qualification of the privilege for non-control employees will not have any substantial impact on the privilege. 1993The privilege only protects disclosure of communications; it does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney[.] 449 U.S. at 395 , 101 S.Ct. at 685 (emphasis added). *443 The majority also asserts that the qualification of the privilege for non-control employees will not have any substantial impact on the privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Brandt v. Scribnergreen2 sentences1986Our supreme court had occasion to consider the effect of the predecessor to A.R.S. § 12-1191 on the common law doctrine in Brandt v. Scribner, 13 Ariz. 169, 174 , 108 P. 491, 493 (1910), and noted that “[w]hile the subject under consideration is regulated by statute in this territory, the *604 condition of the law in this regard at the time of its enactment must be considered as tending to throw light upon the legislative intent.” Concluding that the only purpose and effect of the statute was to require the filing of a notice of lis pendens in order for the doctrine to apply, the court quoted 1986Our supreme court had occasion to consider the effect of the predecessor to A.R.S. § 12-1191 on the common law doctrine in Brandt v. Scribner, 13 Ariz. 169, 174 , 108 P. 491, 493 (1910), and noted that “[w]hile the subject under consideration is regulated by statute in this territory, the *604 condition of the law in this regard at the time of its enactment must be considered as tending to throw light upon the legislative intent.” Concluding that the only purpose and effect of the statute was to require the filing of a notice of lis pendens in order for the doctrine to apply, the court quoted | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Whitegreen1 sentence1986Our supreme court had occasion to consider the effect of the predecessor to A.R.S. § 12-1191 on the common law doctrine in Brandt v. Scribner, 13 Ariz. 169, 174 , 108 P. 491, 493 (1910), and noted that “[w]hile the subject under consideration is regulated by statute in this territory, the *604 condition of the law in this regard at the time of its enactment must be considered as tending to throw light upon the legislative intent.” Concluding that the only purpose and effect of the statute was to require the filing of a notice of lis pendens in order for the doctrine to apply, the court quoted | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MacDonald v. Eichenauer
green
2 sentences1994Orla relies heavily on two cases, MacDonald v. Eichenauer, 77 Ariz. 252 , 269 P.2d 1057 (1954), and McGriff v. McGriff, 114 Ariz. 323 , 560 P.2d 1230 (1977), for the proposition that there was a question of fact as to whether Carol Reisch was contributorily negligent. 1994Orla relies heavily on two cases, MacDonald v. Eichenauer, 77 Ariz. 252 , 269 P.2d 1057 (1954), and McGriff v. McGriff, 114 Ariz. 323 , 560 P.2d 1230 (1977), for the proposition that there was a question of fact as to whether Carol Reisch was contributorily negligent. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
McGriff v. McGriff
green
2 sentences1994Orla relies heavily on two cases, MacDonald v. Eichenauer, 77 Ariz. 252 , 269 P.2d 1057 (1954), and McGriff v. McGriff, 114 Ariz. 323 , 560 P.2d 1230 (1977), for the proposition that there was a question of fact as to whether Carol Reisch was contributorily negligent. 1994Orla relies heavily on two cases, MacDonald v. Eichenauer, 77 Ariz. 252 , 269 P.2d 1057 (1954), and McGriff v. McGriff, 114 Ariz. 323 , 560 P.2d 1230 (1977), for the proposition that there was a question of fact as to whether Carol Reisch was contributorily negligent. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Conrad Joyner v. Rose Mofford, Secretary of State, State of Arizona Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General, State of Arizona
green
1 sentence1984Joyner v. Mofford, 706 F.2d at 1528-1529 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lathrop v. Sundberg
green
2 sentences1973Implicit in making the privilege qualified is the qualification that the privilege will be forfeited if irrelevant defamatory matter which has no bearing on the matter under consideration is indulged in, Lathrop v. Sundberg, 55 Wash. 144 , 104 P. 176 (1909), or if publication's made to any person other than those whose hearing of it is reasonably believed to be necessary or useful for furtherance of the public interest. 1973Implicit in making the privilege qualified is the qualification that the privilege will be forfeited if irrelevant defamatory matter which has no bearing on the matter under consideration is indulged in, Lathrop v. Sundberg, 55 Wash. 144 , 104 P. 176 (1909), or if publication's made to any person other than those whose hearing of it is reasonably believed to be necessary or useful for furtherance of the public interest. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
First National Bank of Santa Ana v. Erreca
neutral
1 sentence1929That the intention was to limit the decision to the specific facts in the case is shown by the remark of the same court in First National Bank of Santa Ana v. Erreca, 116 Cal. 81 , 58 Am. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Crozier v. Noriega
neutral
2 sentences1927Co. v. Winters, 25 Ariz. 483 , 219 Pac. 585 , and Crozier v. Noriega, 27 Ariz. 409 , 233 Pac. 1104 , it could have requested an instruction on these lines. 1927Co. v. Winters, 25 Ariz. 483 , 219 Pac. 585 , and Crozier v. Noriega, 27 Ariz. 409 , 233 Pac. 1104 , it could have requested an instruction on these lines. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Calumet & Arizona Mining Co. v. Winters
green
2 sentences1927Co. v. Winters, 25 Ariz. 483 , 219 Pac. 585 , and Crozier v. Noriega, 27 Ariz. 409 , 233 Pac. 1104 , it could have requested an instruction on these lines. 1927Co. v. Winters, 25 Ariz. 483 , 219 Pac. 585 , and Crozier v. Noriega, 27 Ariz. 409 , 233 Pac. 1104 , it could have requested an instruction on these lines. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Tatum v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1925Tatum v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 193 Ala. 120 , L. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.