8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1934–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weigle v. Devon T.green1 sentence1991See In re Robert T., 246 Cal.Rptr. at 174 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nashgreen2 sentences1985See State v. Nash, supra, 143 Ariz. at 399, 694 P.2d at 229 . 1985See State v. Nash, supra, 143 Ariz. at 399, 694 P.2d at 229 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Derendal v. Griffith
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 425, ¶¶ 36-37 , 104 P.3d at 156 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.
green
2 sentences1982Collins v. Superior Court, 132 Ariz. 180 , 644 P.2d 1266 (1982) (supplemental opinion filed May 4, 1982). 1 In Collins II the Arizona Supreme Court relaxed the rule of absolute preclusion of hypnotized witnesses’ testimony enunciated in Men a and Collins I, to allow a previously hypnotized witness to testify to the extent of his pre-hypnotic recall, provided that this pre-hypnotic recall had been appropriately recorded before hypnosis, and the hypnosis procedures were performed in a manner designed to minimize the danger of contamination of both pre-hypnotic and post-hypnotic recall. 1982Collins v. Superior Court, 132 Ariz. 180 , 644 P.2d 1266 (1982) (supplemental opinion filed May 4, 1982). 1 In Collins II the Arizona Supreme Court relaxed the rule of absolute preclusion of hypnotized witnesses’ testimony enunciated in Men a and Collins I, to allow a previously hypnotized witness to testify to the extent of his pre-hypnotic recall, provided that this pre-hypnotic recall had been appropriately recorded before hypnosis, and the hypnosis procedures were performed in a manner designed to minimize the danger of contamination of both pre-hypnotic and post-hypnotic recall. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Kostolansky v. Lesher
green
2 sentences1972Nielson & Sons v. Flashberg, 101 Ariz. 335 , 419 P.2d 514 (1966); Kostolansky v. Lesher, 95 Ariz. 103 , 387 P.2d 804 (1963). 1972Nielson & Sons v. Flashberg, 101 Ariz. 335 , 419 P.2d 514 (1966); Kostolansky v. Lesher, 95 Ariz. 103 , 387 P.2d 804 (1963). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Nielson v. Flashberg
green
2 sentences1972Nielson & Sons v. Flashberg, 101 Ariz. 335 , 419 P.2d 514 (1966); Kostolansky v. Lesher, 95 Ariz. 103 , 387 P.2d 804 (1963). 1972Nielson & Sons v. Flashberg, 101 Ariz. 335 , 419 P.2d 514 (1966); Kostolansky v. Lesher, 95 Ariz. 103 , 387 P.2d 804 (1963). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Paulley v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1968Paulley v. Industrial Commission, 91 Ariz. 266 , 371 P.2d 888 (1962); Sandoval v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App. 449 , 415 P.2d 463 (1966). 1968Paulley v. Industrial Commission, 91 Ariz. 266 , 371 P.2d 888 (1962); Sandoval v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App. 449 , 415 P.2d 463 (1966). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Evans v. Pickett
green
2 sentences1968In Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967), involving a motor vehicle accident and a possible violation of a motor vehicle statute, we held that it was not *300 error when the trial court read the statute to the jury and “in effect, told the jury that a violation of that statute was negligence, and, if it were a proximate cause, the jury should find for defendant.” The instruction here requested by the appellant before modification by the trial court was an incorrect statement of the law. 1968In Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967), involving a motor vehicle accident and a possible violation of a motor vehicle statute, we held that it was not *300 error when the trial court read the statute to the jury and “in effect, told the jury that a violation of that statute was negligence, and, if it were a proximate cause, the jury should find for defendant.” The instruction here requested by the appellant before modification by the trial court was an incorrect statement of the law. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Sandoval v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1968Paulley v. Industrial Commission, 91 Ariz. 266 , 371 P.2d 888 (1962); Sandoval v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App. 449 , 415 P.2d 463 (1966). 1968Paulley v. Industrial Commission, 91 Ariz. 266 , 371 P.2d 888 (1962); Sandoval v. Industrial Commission, 3 Ariz.App. 449 , 415 P.2d 463 (1966). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Colorado Springs & Interurban Railway Co. v. Reese
green
2 sentences1934Co. v. Reese, 69 Colo. 1 , 169 Pac. 572 ; Cramblet v. Chicago & N. W. 1934Co. v. Reese, 69 Colo. 1 , 169 Pac. 572 ; Cramblet v. Chicago & N. W. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.