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 1956–2020 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. Biblegreen1 sentence2020P. 18.5(f). ¶7 The Rules have been interpreted as allowing a challenge for cause during trial, “provided the grounds for the challenge were not known earlier,” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 574 (1993), and “where there are sufficient jurors to enable the trial to continue,” State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 142 (App. 1980).2 But Sernas did not raise his challenge until after the 1Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 2 Although a juror also may be replaced during deliberation in certain circumstances, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Evansgreen1 sentence2020P. 18.5(f). ¶7 The Rules have been interpreted as allowing a challenge for cause during trial, “provided the grounds for the challenge were not known earlier,” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 574 (1993), and “where there are sufficient jurors to enable the trial to continue,” State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 140, 142 (App. 1980).2 But Sernas did not raise his challenge until after the 1Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 2 Although a juror also may be replaced during deliberation in certain circumstances, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences1993Id.; see also Cook, 170 Ariz. at 53 , 821 P.2d at 744 . 1993Id.; see also Cook, 170 Ariz. at 53 , 821 P.2d at 744 . | 1 | 1 |
U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Construction Co.green2 sentences1990Logan further asserts that the grounds for exception to enforcement of such an arbitration clause are those stated in A.R.S. § 12-1501 and “alleged with respect to the formation of the arbitration agreement itself, not the underlying contract.” U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Const. Co., Inc., 146 Ariz. 250, 254 , 705 P.2d 490, 494 (App.1985). 1990Logan further asserts that the grounds for exception to enforcement of such an arbitration clause are those stated in A.R.S. § 12-1501 and “alleged with respect to the formation of the arbitration agreement itself, not the underlying contract.” U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Const. Co., Inc., 146 Ariz. 250, 254 , 705 P.2d 490, 494 (App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1984It is well established that a party must state distinctly the grounds for a challenge to the admissibility of evidence, e.g., State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1981); State v. Baca, 102 Ariz. 83, 87 , 425 P.2d 108, 112 (1967), and that we therefore consider the objective record, not the subjective intentions of one or more of the parties. 1984It is well established that a party must state distinctly the grounds for a challenge to the admissibility of evidence, e.g., State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1981); State v. Baca, 102 Ariz. 83, 87 , 425 P.2d 108, 112 (1967), and that we therefore consider the objective record, not the subjective intentions of one or more of the parties. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bacagreen2 sentences1984It is well established that a party must state distinctly the grounds for a challenge to the admissibility of evidence, e.g., State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1981); State v. Baca, 102 Ariz. 83, 87 , 425 P.2d 108, 112 (1967), and that we therefore consider the objective record, not the subjective intentions of one or more of the parties. 1984It is well established that a party must state distinctly the grounds for a challenge to the admissibility of evidence, e.g., State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1981); State v. Baca, 102 Ariz. 83, 87 , 425 P.2d 108, 112 (1967), and that we therefore consider the objective record, not the subjective intentions of one or more of the parties. | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Speckgreen2 sentences1982People v. Speck, 41 Ill.2d 177, 200 , 242 N.E.2d 208, 221 (1968). 1982People v. Speck, 41 Ill.2d 177, 200 , 242 N.E.2d 208, 221 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
1 sentence2017P., provides that, “[u]pon the request of any party, the court shall permit that party a reasonable time to conduct a further oral examination of the prospective jurors.” 3 Although the court “may impose reasonable limitations with respect to questions allowed,” id., it cannot restrict questions “to the grounds of challenge for cause,” Ariz. R. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Glasco
neutral
2 sentences1981State v. Glasco, 124 Ariz. 454 , 605 P.2d 33 (1980). 1981State v. Glasco, 124 Ariz. 454 , 605 P.2d 33 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Thornburg v. Frye
green
2 sentences1956In that case he cited twenty decisions of this court on the subject since Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282 , 36 P.2d 548 , wherein prior decisions on the rule were collated. 1956In that case he cited twenty decisions of this court on the subject since Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282 , 36 P.2d 548 , wherein prior decisions on the rule were collated. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.