7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1969–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC.green2 sentences2022Water & Sewer Inc., 224 Ariz. 173, ¶ 36 (App. 2010). 2022Water & Sewer Inc., 224 Ariz. 173, ¶ 36 (App. 2010). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Mallorygreen1 sentence2021Water & Sewer Inc., 224 Ariz. 173, 187, ¶ 36 (App. 2010); see State v. Mallory, 19 Ariz. App. 15, 18 (1972) (charging document tracking statutory language generally provides sufficient notice). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rickard-Hughesgreen2 sentences2010State v. Rickard-Hughes, 182 Ariz. 273, 275 , 895 P.2d 1036, 1038 (App.1995). 2010State v. Rickard-Hughes, 182 Ariz. 273, 275 , 895 P.2d 1036, 1038 (App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cruikshank
green
2 sentences2003Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 558 . ¶ 48 Thus, to pass muster under the Sixth Amendment, the prosecution, when charging either assault or a greater crime that contains assault as a component must provide more notice than simply "assault." The prosecution must also allege facts and circumstances that will alert the accused specifically to the type of assault he must prepare to defend against; i.e., "the specific offence, coming under the general description, with which he is charged." Hess, 124 U.S. at 487 , 8 S.Ct. 571 . 2003Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 558 . ¶ 48 Thus, to pass muster under the Sixth Amendment, the prosecution, when charging either assault or a greater crime that contains assault as a component must provide more notice than simply “assault.” The prosecution must also allege facts and circumstances that will alert the accused specifically to the type of assault he must prepare to defend against; ie., “the specific offence, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.” Hess, 124 U.S. at 487 , 8 S.Ct. 571 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Hess
green
2 sentences2003Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 558 . ¶ 48 Thus, to pass muster under the Sixth Amendment, the prosecution, when charging either assault or a greater crime that contains assault as a component must provide more notice than simply "assault." The prosecution must also allege facts and circumstances that will alert the accused specifically to the type of assault he must prepare to defend against; i.e., "the specific offence, coming under the general description, with which he is charged." Hess, 124 U.S. at 487 , 8 S.Ct. 571 . 2003Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 558 . ¶ 48 Thus, to pass muster under the Sixth Amendment, the prosecution, when charging either assault or a greater crime that contains assault as a component must provide more notice than simply "assault." The prosecution must also allege facts and circumstances that will alert the accused specifically to the type of assault he must prepare to defend against; i.e., "the specific offence, coming under the general description, with which he is charged." Hess, 124 U.S. at 487 , 8 S.Ct. 571 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1972We quote a portion of the Robinson opinion: “In order to be legally sufficient, an information must show four things: It must clearly indicate the crime charged; it must state the essential elements of the crime; it must adequately describe what acts and property are involved, so as to apprise the court of what acts and property are in question and to enable the defendant to prepare his defense to the charge; and it must be specific enough to enable the accused to plead the verdict in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same unlawful act.” 9 Ariz.App. at 382 , 452 P.2d at 709 . 1972We quote a portion of the Robinson opinion: “In order to be legally sufficient, an information must show four things: It must clearly indicate the crime charged; it must state the essential elements of the crime; it must adequately describe what acts and property are involved, so as to apprise the court of what acts and property are in question and to enable the defendant to prepare his defense to the charge; and it must be specific enough to enable the accused to plead the verdict in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same unlawful act.” 9 Ariz.App. at 382 , 452 P.2d at 709 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1969State v. Maxwell, 103 Ariz. 478 , 445 P.2d 837 (1968); State v. Kuhnley, 74 Ariz. 10 , 242 P.2d 843 (1952); State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App. 178 , 412 P.2d 860 (1966). 1969State v. Maxwell, 103 Ariz. 478 , 445 P.2d 837 (1968); State v. Kuhnley, 74 Ariz. 10 , 242 P.2d 843 (1952); State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App. 178 , 412 P.2d 860 (1966). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
State v. Kuhnley
green
2 sentences1969State v. Maxwell, 103 Ariz. 478 , 445 P.2d 837 (1968); State v. Kuhnley, 74 Ariz. 10 , 242 P.2d 843 (1952); State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App. 178 , 412 P.2d 860 (1966). 1969State v. Maxwell, 103 Ariz. 478 , 445 P.2d 837 (1968); State v. Kuhnley, 74 Ariz. 10 , 242 P.2d 843 (1952); State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App. 178 , 412 P.2d 860 (1966). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
State v. Maxwell
green
2 sentences1969State v. Maxwell, 103 Ariz. 478 , 445 P.2d 837 (1968); State v. Kuhnley, 74 Ariz. 10 , 242 P.2d 843 (1952); State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App. 178 , 412 P.2d 860 (1966). 1969State v. Maxwell, 103 Ariz. 478 , 445 P.2d 837 (1968); State v. Kuhnley, 74 Ariz. 10 , 242 P.2d 843 (1952); State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App. 178 , 412 P.2d 860 (1966). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.