8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barbara Combs v. Commissioner of Social Securitygreen2 sentences2025First, in Combs v. Commissioner of Social Security, 459 F.3d 640, 642 (6th Cir. 2006), the Sixth Circuit analyzed “a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims” that “required more detailed proof of disability from obese claimants by eliminating a presumption of disability for obesity.” The court determined that the rule change was “more procedural than substantive in nature” because “[t]he ultimate criteria of disability eligibility [were] not changed.” Id. at 647 (“The substantive requirements for disability eligibility have not changed, only th 2025First, in Combs v. Commissioner of Social Security, 459 F.3d 640, 642 (6th Cir. 2006), the Sixth Circuit analyzed “a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims” that “required more detailed proof of disability from obese claimants by eliminating a presumption of disability for obesity.” The court determined that the rule change was “more procedural than substantive in nature” because “[t]he ultimate criteria of disability eligibility [were] not changed.” Id. at 647 (“The substantive requirements for disability eligibility have not changed, only th | 1 | 2 |
Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevuegreen1 sentence2026See Ino Ino, 937 P.2d at 165 (stating that “statutes from the time of the constitution’s ratification” are persuasive in deciding whether a provision gives more protection in an area). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perezgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Perez, 233 Ariz. 38, ¶¶ 15-16 , 308 P.3d 1189, 1193 (App.2013). 2014See State v. Perez, 233 Ariz. 38, ¶¶ 15-16 , 308 P.3d 1189, 1193 (App.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Ariz.green2 sentences2012The Commission exercised its jurisdiction to approve installation of the wayside horns “because they represent a change to the warning devices at the crossing.” 6 See Maricopa Cnty., 79 Ariz. at 312, 289 P.2d at 186 (stating that the Commission has authority to order installation, use, maintenance, and operation of appropriate safety devices). 2012The Commission exercised its jurisdiction to approve installation of the wayside horns “because they represent a change to the warning devices at the crossing.” 6 See Maricopa Cnty., 79 Ariz. at 312, 289 P.2d at 186 (stating that the Commission has authority to order installation, use, maintenance, and operation of appropriate safety devices). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Guerrerogreen2 sentences1968The change in our rule was designed, in our opinion, solely to prevent automatic foreclosure of the public interest by an “order of secrecy * * * based entirely on defendant’s request.” Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra. We cannot conceive that a justice-dispensing tribunal could thus be restrained from evaluating the possible prejudicial damage to a juvenile witness, contrary to the policy of the juvenile law: “* * * to hide youthful errors from the full gaze of the public and bury them in the graveyard of the forgotten past.” State v. Guerrero, 58 Ariz. 421, 430 , 120 P.2d 79 1968The change in our rule was designed, in our opinion, solely to prevent automatic foreclosure of the public interest by an “order of secrecy * * * based entirely on defendant’s request.” Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra. We cannot conceive that a justice-dispensing tribunal could thus be restrained from evaluating the possible prejudicial damage to a juvenile witness, contrary to the policy of the juvenile law: “* * * to hide youthful errors from the full gaze of the public and bury them in the graveyard of the forgotten past.” State v. Guerrero, 58 Ariz. 421, 430 , 120 P.2d 79 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014The recent change of the rule in 2012 reflects a shift in Arizona to adopting the federal standard of admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). 2014The recent change of the rule in 2012 reflects a shift in Arizona to adopting the federal standard of admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Armstrong
green
2 sentences1990The Commission then contended that “it is doubtful that the Court intended a radical departure from the previous felony sanction, however.” Id. 1990The Commission then contended that "it is doubtful that the Court intended a radical departure from the previous felony sanction, however." Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Wilson v. Wiggins
green
2 sentences1967Tor, while it may often exclude the only •possible evidence of misconduct, a change in the rule “would open the door to the most pernicious arts and tampering with jurors.” “The practice would be repíete with dangerous consequences.” “It would lead to the grossest fraud and abuse” and “no verdict would be safe.” (Citations omitted.)’” 54 Ariz. at 245 , 94 P.2d at 872 . 3 The Wilson case, supra, is distinguishable from the case at bar in that the affidavits were executed by jurors other than the one whose conduct was challenged. 1967Tor, while it may often exclude the only •possible evidence of misconduct, a change in the rule “would open the door to the most pernicious arts and tampering with jurors.” “The practice would be repíete with dangerous consequences.” “It would lead to the grossest fraud and abuse” and “no verdict would be safe.” (Citations omitted.)’” 54 Ariz. at 245 , 94 P.2d at 872 . 3 The Wilson case, supra, is distinguishable from the case at bar in that the affidavits were executed by jurors other than the one whose conduct was challenged. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.