7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Kevin A.green2 sentences2015This court affirmed, finding that the juvenile court properly retained authority to extend the restitution deadline for “cause.” Richard B., 216 Ariz. at 130–31, ¶¶ 13, 16, 163 P.3d at 1080–81 (emphasis in original) (quoting In re Kevin A., 201 Ariz. 161, 162, ¶ 10 , 32 P.3d 1088, 1089 (App. 2001)). ¶13 In the instant case, there was no warning that a failure to meet a specific deadline would result in restitution being denied. 2015This court affirmed, finding that the juvenile court properly retained authority to extend the restitution deadline for “cause.” Richard B., 216 Ariz. at 130–31, ¶¶ 13, 16, 163 P.3d at 1080–81 (emphasis in original) (quoting In re Kevin A., 201 Ariz. 161, 162, ¶ 10 , 32 P.3d 1088, 1089 (App. 2001)). ¶13 In the instant case, there was no warning that a failure to meet a specific deadline would result in restitution being denied. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moodygreen1 sentence2003"The absence of any inquiry by the [trial] court also deprives this court of a sufficient basis to conduct our review of [the defendant’s] request.” United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2000); State v. Gannon, 130 Ariz. 592, 594 , 638 P.2d 206, 208 (1981) (when reviewing post-conviction relief proceeding, "[a] determination whether the defendant has received effective assistance of counsel is made on the basis of the record”); cf. Moody, 192 Ariz. at 507-09, ¶¶ 13-21 , 968 P.2d at 580-82 . 6 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Drago Carl Musagreen1 sentence2003"The absence of any inquiry by the [trial] court also deprives this court of a sufficient basis to conduct our review of [the defendant’s] request.” United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2000); State v. Gannon, 130 Ariz. 592, 594 , 638 P.2d 206, 208 (1981) (when reviewing post-conviction relief proceeding, "[a] determination whether the defendant has received effective assistance of counsel is made on the basis of the record”); cf. Moody, 192 Ariz. at 507-09, ¶¶ 13-21 , 968 P.2d at 580-82 . 6 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gannongreen2 sentences2003"The absence of any inquiry by the [trial] court also deprives this court of a sufficient basis to conduct our review of [the defendant’s] request.” United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2000); State v. Gannon, 130 Ariz. 592, 594 , 638 P.2d 206, 208 (1981) (when reviewing post-conviction relief proceeding, "[a] determination whether the defendant has received effective assistance of counsel is made on the basis of the record”); cf. Moody, 192 Ariz. at 507-09, ¶¶ 13-21 , 968 P.2d at 580-82 . 6 . 2003"The absence of any inquiry by the [trial] court also deprives this court of a sufficient basis to conduct our review of [the defendant’s] request.” United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2000); State v. Gannon, 130 Ariz. 592, 594 , 638 P.2d 206, 208 (1981) (when reviewing post-conviction relief proceeding, "[a] determination whether the defendant has received effective assistance of counsel is made on the basis of the record”); cf. Moody, 192 Ariz. at 507-09, ¶¶ 13-21 , 968 P.2d at 580-82 . 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Coxgreen2 sentences2000Cf. In re Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168 , 87 Cal.Rptr. 55, 72 (1970) (“It is not necessary that the will refer to a power of appointment in order to exercise such power, in the absence of any such requirement in the instrument creating the power.”). 2000Cf. In re Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168 , 87 Cal.Rptr. 55, 72 (1970) (“It is not necessary that the will refer to a power of appointment in order to exercise such power, in the absence of any such requirement in the instrument creating the power.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Potter v. California
green
1 sentence2021Therefore, given the absence of any challenge to trial counsel’s effectiveness, we deem the argument waived. ¶8 Furthermore, we decline PCR counsel’s alternative request “to review the record for possible error” under Anders v. California, 388 U.S. 924 (1967), then grant Watson 45 days “to file any pro se supplemental brief.” As a threshold matter, because Watson did not raise this issue in the superior court, we need not consider it. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Richard B.
green
2 sentences2015In In re Richard B., the juvenile court assessed whether any potential undue delay resulting from an extension of the missed deadline would prejudice the juvenile, and after considering the specific facts of the case, concluded that the victim had acted reasonably and promptly in light of the information she was given, particularly given the absence of any warning that a failure to comply with the deadline would render the issue closed. 216 Ariz. at 129–31, ¶¶ 8–9, 16–19, 163 P.3d at 1079–81. 2015In In re Richard B., the juvenile court assessed whether any potential undue delay resulting from an extension of the missed deadline would prejudice the juvenile, and after considering the specific facts of the case, concluded that the victim had acted reasonably and promptly in light of the information she was given, particularly given the absence of any warning that a failure to comply with the deadline would render the issue closed. 216 Ariz. at 129–31, ¶¶ 8–9, 16–19, 163 P.3d at 1079–81. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg
green
2 sentences2010Lindner also argues that this court's ruling in Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471 (App. 2006), that the Intoxilyzer calibration and quality assurance records are not testimonial and accordingly may be admitted at trial in the absence of witness testimony, has been effectively overruled by Melendez-Diaz . ¶ 8 We find no merit in either argument. 2010Lindner also argues that this court's ruling in Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182 , 129 P.3d 471 (App. 2006), that the Intoxilyzer calibration and quality assurance records are not testimonial and accordingly may be admitted at trial in the absence of witness testimony, has been effectively overruled by Melendez-Diaz . ¶ 8 We find no merit in either argument. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Moody
green
1 sentence2003"The absence of any inquiry by the [trial] court also deprives this court of a sufficient basis to conduct our review of [the defendant’s] request.” United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2000); State v. Gannon, 130 Ariz. 592, 594 , 638 P.2d 206, 208 (1981) (when reviewing post-conviction relief proceeding, "[a] determination whether the defendant has received effective assistance of counsel is made on the basis of the record”); cf. Moody, 192 Ariz. at 507-09, ¶¶ 13-21 , 968 P.2d at 580-82 . 6 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Marcus Schloss & Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1991The federal district judge held that “the defendant in an SEC civil proceeding who, with knowledge of a pending criminal inquiry, enters into a consent order explicitly recognizing the absence of any bar to criminal proceedings arising out of the same conduct, cannot subsequently advance that civil disposition, even accompanied by monetary sanctions, as the basis for a claim of double jeopardy.” 724 F.Supp. at 1127 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co.
green
2 sentences1970Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co., 101 Ariz. 470 , 421 P.2d 318 . 1970Goodman v. Newzona Investment Co., 101 Ariz. 470 , 421 P.2d 318 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.