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 1978–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regentsgreen2 sentences2002But such regulations, said the court, "must regulate with narrow specificity so as to affect as little as possible the ability of the sender and receiver to communicate." Id.; see also New Times, 110 Ariz. at 371 , 519 P.2d at 173 (restrictions on First Amendment rights "must be drawn with narrow specificity"). ¶ 10 Empress asserts that § 13-1422 is unconstitutional under article II, § 6 because the statute fails to satisfy this narrow specificity standard. 2002But such regulations, said the court, "must regulate with narrow specificity so as to affect as little as possible the ability of the sender and receiver to communicate." Id.; see also New Times, 110 Ariz. at 371 , 519 P.2d at 173 (restrictions on First Amendment rights "must be drawn with narrow specificity"). ¶ 10 Empress asserts that § 13-1422 is unconstitutional under article II, § 6 because the statute fails to satisfy this narrow specificity standard. | 2 | 2 |
International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'ngreen1 sentence2024Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 76 (1967); see also Payne v. Travenol Lab’ys, Inc., 565 F.2d 895 , 897 (5th Cir. 1978) (finding that the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) is “a reflection of the seriousness of the consequences which may flow from a violation of an injunctive order”). ¶19 “[C]ourts are generally hesitant to order a defendant to obey a law in the future,” W. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 350681green1 sentence2024Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 76 (1967); see also Payne v. Travenol Lab’ys, Inc., 565 F.2d 895 , 897 (5th Cir. 1978) (finding that the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) is “a reflection of the seriousness of the consequences which may flow from a violation of an injunctive order”). ¶19 “[C]ourts are generally hesitant to order a defendant to obey a law in the future,” W. | 1 | 1 |
Trantor v. Fredriksongreen2 sentences2003Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299, 301 , 878 P.2d 657, 659 (1994). ¶ 18 As in Trantor , the trial court in this case did not make the requisite specific findings. 2003Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299, 301 , 878 P.2d 657, 659 (1994). ¶ 18 As in Trantor , the trial court in this case did not make the requisite specific findings. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carvergreen2 sentences1996P. 10.1(b); State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 172 , 771 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1989) (placing one’s perceptions and concerns on the record does not satisfy the specificity requirement of Rule 10.1(b)). 1996P. 10.1(b); State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 172 , 771 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1989) (placing one’s perceptions and concerns on the record does not satisfy the specificity requirement of Rule 10.1(b)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences1994See State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 330 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1392 (1993) ("[T]rial judges should discuss all factors considered in mitigation."); State v. Wallace, 160 Ariz. 424, 427 , 773 P.2d 983, 986 (1989). 1994See State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 330 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1392 (1993) ("[T]rial judges should discuss all factors considered in mitigation."); State v. Wallace, 160 Ariz. 424, 427 , 773 P.2d 983, 986 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wallacegreen2 sentences1994See State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 330 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1392 (1993) ("[T]rial judges should discuss all factors considered in mitigation."); State v. Wallace, 160 Ariz. 424, 427 , 773 P.2d 983, 986 (1989). 1994See State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 330 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1392 (1993) ("[T]rial judges should discuss all factors considered in mitigation."); State v. Wallace, 160 Ariz. 424, 427 , 773 P.2d 983, 986 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Santanello v. Coopergreen2 sentences1988Santanello v. Cooper, 106 Ariz. 262, 264 , 475 P.2d 246, 248 (1970). (2) When the trial court sets forth grounds that fail the specificity requirement of Rule 59(m), the burden shifts to the appellee to show that the trial court did not err in ordering a new trial. 1988Santanello v. Cooper, 106 Ariz. 262, 264 , 475 P.2d 246, 248 (1970). (2) When the trial court sets forth grounds that fail the specificity requirement of Rule 59(m), the burden shifts to the appellee to show that the trial court did not err in ordering a new trial. | 1 | 1 |
Reeves v. Marklegreen2 sentences1988Reeves v. Markle, 119 Ariz. 159, 164 , 579 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1978). (3) When the trial court sets forth specific and nonspecific grounds, the reviewing court will ignore the latter and assume the trial court acted only upon the specific grounds. 1988Reeves v. Markle, 119 Ariz. 159, 164 , 579 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1978). (3) When the trial court sets forth specific and nonspecific grounds, the reviewing court will ignore the latter and assume the trial court acted only upon the specific grounds. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission
green
2 sentences2002The court observed that, although the Commission's "presubscription requirement might be a more convenient *822 and certain method" of addressing the ScoopLine problems, the telephone company's proposals for self-imposed regulations illustrated other "plausible means" of doing so and thereby demonstrated "that the Commission did not choose its regulation with narrow specificity." 160 Ariz. at 358 , 773 P.2d at 463 . "[G]overnmental convenience and certainty," said the court, "cannot prevail over constitutionally guaranteed rights." Id. ¶ 15 We also find persuasive support for our conclusion in 2002The court observed that, although the Commission's "presubscription requirement might be a more convenient *822 and certain method" of addressing the ScoopLine problems, the telephone company's proposals for self-imposed regulations illustrated other "plausible means" of doing so and thereby demonstrated "that the Commission did not choose its regulation with narrow specificity." 160 Ariz. at 358 , 773 P.2d at 463 . "[G]overnmental convenience and certainty," said the court, "cannot prevail over constitutionally guaranteed rights." Id. ¶ 15 We also find persuasive support for our conclusion in | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Butler Products Co., Inc. v. Roush
green
2 sentences1999In making this argument, the State relies specifically upon Butler Products Co. v. Roush, 145 Ariz. 32 , 699 P.2d 906 (App.1984), in which this court concluded that a party could not cure, by subsequent amendment, the failure to specify grounds in an otherwise timely motion for new trial. 1999In making this argument, the State relies specifically upon Butler Products Co. v. Roush, 145 Ariz. 32 , 699 P.2d 906 (App.1984), in which this court concluded that a party could not cure, by subsequent amendment, the failure to specify grounds in an otherwise timely motion for new trial. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Civil Service Com'n of City of Tucson v. Mills
green
2 sentences1978Failure to follow Director’s direction regarding vacation, leave, absence from the office and hiring, etc.” In Civil Service Commission of the City of Tucson v. Mills, 23 Ariz.App. 499 , 534 P.2d 430 (1975) we discussed the purpose of the specificity requirement in the rules. 1978Failure to follow Director’s direction regarding vacation, leave, absence from the office and hiring, etc.” In Civil Service Commission of the City of Tucson v. Mills, 23 Ariz.App. 499 , 534 P.2d 430 (1975) we discussed the purpose of the specificity requirement in the rules. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.