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 1997–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizonagreen1 sentence2025Co. of Ariz., 166 Ariz. 33, 38 (App. 1990). ¶26 These cases indicate that when, as here, parties have conflicting claims and counterclaims for money damages arising out of the same facts (here the contract between Gipson and Rental Renovators), the “net judgment rule” is the presumptive standard applicable to determine the successful party. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Acostagreen1 sentence2022See State v. Rich, 115 Ariz. 119, 121 (App. 1977) (“Driving over the speed limit . . . creates a presumptive violation of the basic speed law” set forth in A.R.S. § 28-701(A).). ¶13 We have previously held that “the violation of a traffic law provides sufficient grounds to stop a vehicle.” State v. Acosta, 166 Ariz. 254, 257 (App. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richgreen1 sentence2022See State v. Rich, 115 Ariz. 119, 121 (App. 1977) (“Driving over the speed limit . . . creates a presumptive violation of the basic speed law” set forth in A.R.S. § 28-701(A).). ¶13 We have previously held that “the violation of a traffic law provides sufficient grounds to stop a vehicle.” State v. Acosta, 166 Ariz. 254, 257 (App. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
City of Tucson v. Apache Motorsgreen2 sentences2009See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 283, 287, ¶ 12 , 9 P.3d 314, 318 (2000) (“The court or jury is not compelled to believe the uncontradieted evidence of an interested party.” (citing City of Tucson v. Apache Motors, 74 Ariz. 98, 107 , 245 P.2d 255, 261 (1952))); Nystrom v. Mass. Cas. 2009See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 283, 287, ¶ 12 , 9 P.3d 314, 318 (2000) (“The court or jury is not compelled to believe the uncontradieted evidence of an interested party.” (citing City of Tucson v. Apache Motors, 74 Ariz. 98, 107 , 245 P.2d 255, 261 (1952))); Nystrom v. Mass. Cas. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd.green2 sentences2009See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 283, 287, ¶ 12 , 9 P.3d 314, 318 (2000) (“The court or jury is not compelled to believe the uncontradieted evidence of an interested party.” (citing City of Tucson v. Apache Motors, 74 Ariz. 98, 107 , 245 P.2d 255, 261 (1952))); Nystrom v. Mass. Cas. 2009See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 283, 287, ¶ 12 , 9 P.3d 314, 318 (2000) (“The court or jury is not compelled to believe the uncontradieted evidence of an interested party.” (citing City of Tucson v. Apache Motors, 74 Ariz. 98, 107 , 245 P.2d 255, 261 (1952))); Nystrom v. Mass. Cas. | 1 | 1 |
Banales v. Smithgreen2 sentences2009See Banales , 200 Ariz, at 420, ¶ 6, 26 P.3d at 1191 ("Although none of these cases [including Trantor] involves the findings required by § 25-403, we believe their reasoning and holdings are equally applicable in this context."). 2009See Banales, 200 Ariz. at 420, ¶ 6 , 26 P.3d at 1191 (“Although none of these cases [including Trantor ] involves the findings required by § 25-403, we believe their reasoning and holdings are equally applicable in this context.”). | 1 | 1 |
Blanton v. City of North Las Vegasgreen2 sentences1997See Blanton, 489 U.S. at 543 , 109 S.Ct. at 1293 . 1997See Blanton, 489 U.S. at 543 , 109 S.Ct. at 1293 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Warner
green
2 sentences1999The supreme court found a presumptive violation of Sixth Amendment rights and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, instructing the trial court to make separate and detailed findings regarding the motive behind the seizure of defendant’s papers, the use made of them, whether the interference with the attorney relationship was deliberate, whether the state benefited in any way from the seizure, if the papers were used how any taint was purged in defendant’s trial and whether defendant was, in fact, prejudiced. 150 Ariz. at 129 , 722 P.2d at 297 . ¶ 30 Warner concluded that the trial court must b 1999The supreme court found a presumptive violation of Sixth Amendment rights and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, instructing the trial court to make separate and detailed findings regarding the motive behind the seizure of defendant’s papers, the use made of them, whether the interference with the attorney relationship was deliberate, whether the state benefited in any way from the seizure, if the papers were used how any taint was purged in defendant’s trial and whether defendant was, in fact, prejudiced. 150 Ariz. at 129 , 722 P.2d at 297 . ¶ 30 Warner concluded that the trial court must b | 3 | 1999–2008 |
State v. Livingston
green
1 sentence2022Citing State v. Livingston, 206 Ariz. 145 (App. 2003), Law argues that a single instance of drifting over the fog line is insufficient to justify a stop. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Trantor v. Fredrikson
green
2 sentences2009In rejecting that rationale, our supreme court noted that, "[a]lthough findings of fact and conclusions of law are certainly helpful on appellate review, they do not go to the foundation of the case or deprive a party of a fair hearing." Id. ¶ 18 In Banales , this court applied without analysis the presumptive rule of waiver espoused in Trantor to § 25-403. 2009In rejecting that rationale, our supreme court noted that, “[although findings of fact and conclusions of law are certainly helpful on appellate review, they do not go to the foundation of the case or deprive a party of a fair hearing.” Id. ¶ 18 In Banales , this court applied without analysis the presumptive rule of waiver espoused in Trantor to § 25-403. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.