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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovichgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, 158, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (holding the defendant waived a claim on review when he “cite[d] no relevant authority and [did] not develop the argument in any meaningful way”); Ariz. R. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Rinaldo Jacksongreen1 sentence2016Cir. 2000), for the proposition that a court “will not review a belated challenge on an issue a party agreed not to dispute in sentencing proceedings below”); see United States v. Jackson, 346 F.3d 22, 24 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that the defendant waived his challenge to a four-level enhancement by expressly conceding that it applied to his offense). ¶ 27 Second, Gunches’s argument is untimely. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cufflegreen2 sentences2000See id. at 53 , 828 P.2d at 777 . 2000See id. at 53 , 828 P.2d at 777 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
De Leon v. Territory of Arizona
green
2 sentences1983In De-Leon v. Territory, 9 Ariz. 161 , 80 P. 348 this court held that the defendant waived the privilege when he wrote a letter from jail to his wife knowing that *435 the jailer would read it. 1983In De-Leon v. Territory, 9 Ariz. 161 , 80 P. 348 this court held that the defendant waived the privilege when he wrote a letter from jail to his wife knowing that *435 the jailer would read it. | 2 | 1965–1983 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1977State v. Wilson, 113 Ariz. 308 , 553 P.2d 235 (1976); State v. Owens, 112 Ariz. 223 , 540 P.2d 695 (1975). 1977State v. Wilson, 113 Ariz. 308 , 553 P.2d 235 (1976); State v. Owens, 112 Ariz. 223 , 540 P.2d 695 (1975). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Owens
green
2 sentences1977State v. Wilson, 113 Ariz. 308 , 553 P.2d 235 (1976); State v. Owens, 112 Ariz. 223 , 540 P.2d 695 (1975). 1977State v. Wilson, 113 Ariz. 308 , 553 P.2d 235 (1976); State v. Owens, 112 Ariz. 223 , 540 P.2d 695 (1975). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Hawkins
green
2 sentences1976People v. Hawkins, 44 Cal.App.3d 958 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 54 (1975). (“In as much as the pre-revo-cation hearing was not objected to at the final hearing on February 1, 1974, the defendant waived the hearing.” Id. at 967 , 119 Cal.Rptr. at 59 ); In re La Croix, 12 Cal.3d 146 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 344 , 524 P.2d 816 (1975); Woods v. State, 526 P.2d 944 (Okl.Cr.App.1974). 1976People v. Hawkins, 44 Cal.App.3d 958 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 54 (1975). (“In as much as the pre-revo-cation hearing was not objected to at the final hearing on February 1, 1974, the defendant waived the hearing.” Id. at 967 , 119 Cal.Rptr. at 59 ); In re La Croix, 12 Cal.3d 146 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 344 , 524 P.2d 816 (1975); Woods v. State, 526 P.2d 944 (Okl.Cr.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In Re La Croix
green
2 sentences1976People v. Hawkins, 44 Cal.App.3d 958 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 54 (1975). (“In as much as the pre-revo-cation hearing was not objected to at the final hearing on February 1, 1974, the defendant waived the hearing.” Id. at 967 , 119 Cal.Rptr. at 59 ); In re La Croix, 12 Cal.3d 146 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 344 , 524 P.2d 816 (1975); Woods v. State, 526 P.2d 944 (Okl.Cr.App.1974). 1976People v. Hawkins, 44 Cal.App.3d 958 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 54 (1975). (“In as much as the pre-revo-cation hearing was not objected to at the final hearing on February 1, 1974, the defendant waived the hearing.” Id. at 967 , 119 Cal.Rptr. at 59 ); In re La Croix, 12 Cal.3d 146 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 344 , 524 P.2d 816 (1975); Woods v. State, 526 P.2d 944 (Okl.Cr.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Woods v. State
green
1 sentence1976People v. Hawkins, 44 Cal.App.3d 958 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 54 (1975). (“In as much as the pre-revo-cation hearing was not objected to at the final hearing on February 1, 1974, the defendant waived the hearing.” Id. at 967 , 119 Cal.Rptr. at 59 ); In re La Croix, 12 Cal.3d 146 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 344 , 524 P.2d 816 (1975); Woods v. State, 526 P.2d 944 (Okl.Cr.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.