useful framework (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

useful framework in Arizona

9 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2017 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Matter of Speargreen
ariz · 1989 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1990–1992
2 sentences

1990See, e.g., Matter of Spear, 160 Ariz. 545, 555 , 774 P.2d 1335, 1345 (1989) (standards provide a useful framework for guiding our sanction decision).

1990See, e.g., Matter of Spear, 160 Ariz. 545, 555 , 774 P.2d 1335, 1345 (1989) (standards provide a useful framework for guiding our sanction decision).

13
United States v. Wardgreen
scotus · 1980 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1997–1999
2 sentences

1997These considerations provide a useful framework, although they are “certainly neither exhaustive nor dispositive.” Ward, 448 U.S. at 249 , 100 S.Ct. at 2641 .

1997These considerations provide a useful framework, although they are “certainly neither exhaustive nor dispositive.” Ward, 448 U.S. at 249 , 100 S.Ct. at 2641 .

12

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. green
ariz · 2016
2 sentences

2017Although the trial court gave her the opportunity, Spring made no showing that Bradford’s expert witnesses changed their testimony based on their review of Spring’s expert witnesses’ trial testimony. ¶26 More apropos to our analysis and to providing a useful framework for considering claims of prejudice is American Power Products, Inc. In considering Arizona Rule of Evidence 606 and a bailiff’s improper communication with deliberating jurors, we stated that “our rules charge the trial judge with deciding, based on the available evidence, whether the error likely ‘affect[ed] the substantial rig

2017Although the trial court gave her the opportunity, Spring made no showing that Bradford’s expert witnesses changed their testimony based on their review of Spring’s expert witnesses’ trial testimony. ¶26 More apropos to our analysis and to providing a useful framework for considering claims of prejudice is American Power Products, Inc. In considering Arizona Rule of Evidence 606 and a bailiff’s improper communication with deliberating jurors, we stated that “our rules charge the trial judge with deciding, based on the available evidence, whether the error likely ‘affect[ed] the substantial rig

22017–2017
Duval Sierrita Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue green
arizctapp · 1977
2 sentences

2004In Duval Sierrita, the court addressed whether two types of property qualified for the § 42-5159(B)(1) use tax exemption: (1) spare or replacement parts for items conceded to be machinery or equipment, 116 Ariz. at 203 , 568 P.2d at 1101 , and (2) water booster pumps and steel water pipes used in Duval Sierrita’s mining operations, id. at 202 , 568 P.2d at 1100 .

2004In Duval Sierrita, the court addressed whether two types of property qualified for the § 42-5159(B)(1) use tax exemption: (1) spare or replacement parts for items conceded to be machinery or equipment, 116 Ariz. at 203 , 568 P.2d at 1101 , and (2) water booster pumps and steel water pipes used in Duval Sierrita’s mining operations, id. at 202 , 568 P.2d at 1100 .

12004–2004
Boyes v. Shell Oil Products Company green
ca11 · 2000
1 sentence

2003Co., 199 F.3d 1260 , provides a more useful analysis of the preemption issue.

12003–2003
United States v. Ursery green
scotus · 1996
1 sentence

1997Indeed, after Noble , the Supreme Court in Ursery seemed to return to the two-part “intent-effects test” set forth in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 , 104 S.Ct. 1099 , 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984). 518 U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 2147 .

11997–1997
United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

1997Indeed, after Noble , the Supreme Court in Ursery seemed to return to the two-part “intent-effects test” set forth in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 , 104 S.Ct. 1099 , 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984). 518 U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 2147 .

1997Indeed, after Noble , the Supreme Court in Ursery seemed to return to the two-part “intent-effects test” set forth in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 , 104 S.Ct. 1099 , 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984). 518 U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 2147 .

11997–1997

Where else courts name it

CA 26 (1974–2021) NM 16 (1996–2024) NY 14 (1925–2025) IL 13 (1980–2020) TX 13 (1977–2026) AL 11 (1991–2012) AZ 9 (1990–2017) IN 9 (1998–2025) OH 9 (1988–2021) NE 9 (1914–2025) MD 9 (1983–2010) NJ 8 (1887–2018) MN 8 (1990–2024) PA 6 (1981–2024) MA 6 (1980–2025) CO 6 (1983–2020) MI 6 (1993–2025) WI 6 (1986–2007) FL 5 (1969–2012) OR 5 (1981–2021) KY 4 (1995–2025) ID 4 (1985–2010) MS 4 (1991–1995) CT 4 (1997–2018) DE 4 (1985–2023) IA 4 (1977–2022) UT 4 (1999–2020) WA 3 (1976–1993) LA 3 (2005–2012) AK 3 (1981–2026) DC 3 (1990–2015) RI 2 (2003–2004) KS 2 (2014–2020) WY 2 (1993–2020) VA 2 (2013–2023) AR 2 (1987–1987) VT 2 (1990–2020) OK 2 (1986–1993) SC 2 (1994–1996) WV 2 (1995–1997) HI 2 (1958–1996)

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