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.
8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2019 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 v. Reffittgreen1 sentence2019See generally State v. Laird, 186 Ariz. 203, 206 (1996) (finding the evidence so strong, and the defense so incredible, that the court could say with certainty that the defendant was not denied a fair trial); Reffitt, 145 Ariz. at 462 (concluding that, even if the appellant had been entitled to a Willits instruction, he was not prejudiced because there existed “no reasonable possibility that the assigned error contributed to the jury’s verdict”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2019Appellant has not shown that the evidence he seeks would have been helpful to his defense, see State v. Miller, 108 Ariz. 441, 444 (1972), and we find no error, much less fundamental error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lairdgreen1 sentence2019See generally State v. Laird, 186 Ariz. 203, 206 (1996) (finding the evidence so strong, and the defense so incredible, that the court could say with certainty that the defendant was not denied a fair trial); Reffitt, 145 Ariz. at 462 (concluding that, even if the appellant had been entitled to a Willits instruction, he was not prejudiced because there existed “no reasonable possibility that the assigned error contributed to the jury’s verdict”). | 1 | 1 |
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.green1 sentence2010See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172, 178, ¶ 5 , 219 P.3d 219 , 225 (App.2008) (purpose of limitations defense is to avoid defendants having to litigate stale claims). ¶ 20 In sum, the Estate timely asserted the assigned claim for medical expenses. | 1 | 1 |
Cruz v. Lusk Collection Agencygreen2 sentences1998In Cruz v. Lusk Collection Agency, 119 Ariz. 356 , 580 P.2d 1210 (App.1978), however, we ruled to the contrary that when a collection agency retains lawyers to pursue an assigned claim, the lawyers represent only the collection agency and not the assignor. 1998In Cruz v. Lusk Collection Agency, 119 Ariz. 356 , 580 P.2d 1210 (App.1978), however, we ruled to the contrary that when a collection agency retains lawyers to pursue an assigned claim, the lawyers represent only the collection agency and not the assignor. | 1 | 1 |
Cohn v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1998See id. at 360 , 580 P.2d at 1214 (citing Cohn v. Thompson, 16 P.2d 364, 365 (Cal.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Esposito v. United States
green
1 sentence2010L.Rev. 926, 928, 934-36 (1957) (explaining that the rule stems from early nineteenth century differences between law and equity regarding whether the assignor or assignee should appear as the plaintiff in an action to enforce an assigned claim); Esposito, 368 F.3d at 1275 n. 2 (noting that the 1966 amendments to federal rule 17(a) were “originally developed to apply to maritime actions with a very short statute of limitations where the identity of the party entitled to sue can be difficult to determine.”). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2010Id. ¶ 13 Here, DeSela assigned her claim to Maddison (now the Estate) before the A.R.S. § 12-821 limitations period had expired. 9 At that point, the claim was governed by A.R.S. § 12-502, which applies to Maddison based upon her minority, just as the conservator-ship’s claim in Villa and the federal government’s claim in Kurtz were governed by a different statute of limitations because the assignment occurred before the limitations period for the assignor had expired. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Zeckendorf v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences1947Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U.S. 617 , 8 S.Ct. 261 , 31 L.Ed. 277 . 1947Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U.S. 617 , 8 S.Ct. 261 , 31 L.Ed. 277 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Button v. Nevin
green
2 sentences1940We have held, in the case of Button v. Nevin, 44 Ariz. 247 , 36 Pac. (2d) 568 , that a state superintendent *264 of banks who wilfully and knowingly neglects or fails to perform his official duties is liable upon his bond for any damages suffered to parties through such neglect and failure, and that when he allows a bank to engage in business without having fulfilled the conditions specifically required by law, he and his bondsmen are liable for damages to any private parties sustained through the subsequent insolvency of the bank. 1940We have held, in the case of Button v. Nevin, 44 Ariz. 247 , 36 Pac. (2d) 568 , that a state superintendent *264 of banks who wilfully and knowingly neglects or fails to perform his official duties is liable upon his bond for any damages suffered to parties through such neglect and failure, and that when he allows a bank to engage in business without having fulfilled the conditions specifically required by law, he and his bondsmen are liable for damages to any private parties sustained through the subsequent insolvency of the bank. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Deatsch v. Fairfield
green
1 sentence1931Deatsch v. Fairfield, 27 Ariz. 387 , 38 A. L. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Cunningham v. Costello
neutral
2 sentences1918On the former appeal ( 16 Ariz. 479 , 147 Pac. 714 ) that claim was finally adjudicated. 1918On the former appeal ( 16 Ariz. 479 , 147 Pac. 714 ) that claim was finally adjudicated. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
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.