8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hmielewski v. Maricopa Countygreen2 sentences2003See Owen (certain powers essential to dignity and operation of court are implicit, even though they "may not be catalogued in the constitution or statute"); see also Hmielewski v. Maricopa County, 192 Ariz. 1 , 960 P.2d 47 (App.1997) (trial courts have inherent power to sanction bad faith conduct during litigation, independent of rules of procedure); cf. Greenlee County Justice Court (absent any evidence that use of peremptory challenges was attempt to threaten independence and integrity of particular judge, no abuse of rule found). ¶ 42 Neither the rule's language that "the presiding judge sh 2003See Owen (certain powers essential to dignity and operation of court are implicit, even though they "may not be catalogued in the constitution or statute"); see also Hmielewski v. Maricopa County, 192 Ariz. 1 , 960 P.2d 47 (App.1997) (trial courts have inherent power to sanction bad faith conduct during litigation, independent of rules of procedure); cf. Greenlee County Justice Court (absent any evidence that use of peremptory challenges was attempt to threaten independence and integrity of particular judge, no abuse of rule found). ¶ 42 Neither the rule's language that "the presiding judge sh | 2 | 2 |
Korzep v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015In fact, the jury in that case received an instruction on the presumption of reasonableness. 202 Ariz. 507, n. 2 , 47 P.3d at 1149 n. 2; cf. Korzep II, 172 Ariz. at 539-40, 542 , 838 P.2d at 1300-01, 1303 (noting vanishing nature of presumption in context of rejecting argument for judgment of acquittal, but requiring grand jury to be instructed on presumption of reasonableness on remand). ¶ 22 No precedent of this court, therefore, supports the proposition that a trial court may deny a jury instruction on crime prevention or omit a reference to the presumption of reasonableness simply because 2015In fact, the jury in that case received an instruction on the presumption of reasonableness. 202 Ariz. 507, n. 2 , 47 P.3d at 1149 n. 2; cf. Korzep II, 172 Ariz. at 539-40, 542 , 838 P.2d at 1300-01, 1303 (noting vanishing nature of presumption in context of rejecting argument for judgment of acquittal, but requiring grand jury to be instructed on presumption of reasonableness on remand). ¶ 22 No precedent of this court, therefore, supports the proposition that a trial court may deny a jury instruction on crime prevention or omit a reference to the presumption of reasonableness simply because | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First National Bank of McMinn County v. Walker
green
2 sentences1986This was the case in First National Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, supra, where the facts showed the donor intended to limit his wife’s access to the corpus. 1986This was the case in First National Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, supra , where the facts showed the donor intended to limit his wife's access to the corpus. | 2 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Stambaugh
green
2 sentences2022We explained that “the prosecutor’s reference to defense counsel’s request for the instruction was doubly prejudicial: it implied, first, an admission that appellant was guilty of the lesser offense and, second, duplicity on the part of defense counsel.” Id. at 228 . 2022We also reasoned that the superior court’s instruction emphasized rather than cured the resulting prejudice because it “tended to further disparage defense counsel’s argument for acquittal as the alternative to conviction of second degree murder.” Id. ¶14 We find Stambaugh distinguishable. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Parsons v. Arizona Department of Health Services
green
1 sentence2021If the language is clear and unambiguous, courts “must give effect to that language without employing other rules of statutory construction.” Id. ¶32 The statute on which the reference to a presumption relies does not reference “a presumption,” instead saying “absent evidence to the contrary.” See A.R.S. § 25-103.B. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2015In fact, the jury in that case received an instruction on the presumption of reasonableness. 202 Ariz. 507, n. 2 , 47 P.3d at 1149 n. 2; cf. Korzep II, 172 Ariz. at 539-40, 542 , 838 P.2d at 1300-01, 1303 (noting vanishing nature of presumption in context of rejecting argument for judgment of acquittal, but requiring grand jury to be instructed on presumption of reasonableness on remand). ¶ 22 No precedent of this court, therefore, supports the proposition that a trial court may deny a jury instruction on crime prevention or omit a reference to the presumption of reasonableness simply because 2015In fact, the jury in that case received an instruction on the presumption of reasonableness. 202 Ariz. 507, n. 2 , 47 P.3d at 1149 n. 2; cf. Korzep II, 172 Ariz. at 539-40, 542 , 838 P.2d at 1300-01, 1303 (noting vanishing nature of presumption in context of rejecting argument for judgment of acquittal, but requiring grand jury to be instructed on presumption of reasonableness on remand). ¶ 22 No precedent of this court, therefore, supports the proposition that a trial court may deny a jury instruction on crime prevention or omit a reference to the presumption of reasonableness simply because | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Sullivan v. State of Arizona
green
2 sentences1978Sullivan v. State, 47 Ariz. 224 , 55 P.2d 312 (1936). 1978Sullivan v. State, 47 Ariz. 224 , 55 P.2d 312 (1936). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.