7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hageman v. Vanderdoesgreen2 sentences2001See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Vanderdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We therefore overrule State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287 , 440 P.2d 907 (1968) and State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). 2001See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Vanderdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We therefore overrule State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287 , 440 P.2d 907 (1968) and State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). | 2 | 2 |
Fernandez v. Romogreen2 sentences2001See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Vanderdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We therefore overrule State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287 , 440 P.2d 907 (1968) and State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). 2001See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Vanderdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We therefore overrule State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287 , 440 P.2d 907 (1968) and State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). | 2 | 2 |
Stone v. Arizona Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences1966This doctrine having been en-grafted upon Arizona law by judicial enunciation may properly be changed or abrogated by the same process.” Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission, 93 Ariz. 384, 387, 393 , 381 P.2d 107, 109, 113 (1963) We are of the opinion that the Stone decision does not go so far as plaintiffs’ contentions. 1966This doctrine having been en-grafted upon Arizona law by judicial enunciation may properly be changed or abrogated by the same process.” Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission, 93 Ariz. 384, 387, 393 , 381 P.2d 107, 109, 113 (1963) We are of the opinion that the Stone decision does not go so far as plaintiffs’ contentions. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reagangreen2 sentences2001See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Vanderdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We therefore overrule State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287 , 440 P.2d 907 (1968) and State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). 2001See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Vanderdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We therefore overrule State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287 , 440 P.2d 907 (1968) and State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Renaudgreen2 sentences2001See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Vanderdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We therefore overrule State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287 , 440 P.2d 907 (1968) and State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). 2001See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Vanderdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We therefore overrule State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287 , 440 P.2d 907 (1968) and State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Castillo v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1992Citing Castillo v. Industrial Comm’n, 21 Ariz. App. 465, 467-69 , 520 P.2d 1142, 1144-46 (1974), the court explained: The principle is well established that an appeal generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed except in furtherance of the appeal. 1992Citing Castillo v. Industrial Comm’n, 21 Ariz. App. 465, 467-69 , 520 P.2d 1142, 1144-46 (1974), the court explained: The principle is well established that an appeal generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed except in furtherance of the appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C.green1 sentence1990The court held that the “legislature cannot repeal the Rules of Evidence or the Rules of Civil Procedure made pursuant to the power provided us in [Arizona Constitution] article 6, § 5.” Id. at 576, 744 P.2d at 677 (citations omitted) (quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1992Although the court-made rule divesting a trial court of jurisdiction to rule on matters the subject of an appeal has been stated as broadly as Vigliotto’s counsel suggests, 3 the supreme court adopted a more flexible approach in Continental Casualty Co., 111 Ariz. 291 , 528 P.2d 817 (1974). 1992Although the court-made rule divesting a trial court of jurisdiction to rule on matters the subject of an appeal has been stated as broadly as Vigliotto’s counsel suggests, 3 the supreme court adopted a more flexible approach in Continental Casualty Co., 111 Ariz. 291 , 528 P.2d 817 (1974). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Seidel
green
1 sentence1987Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.