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 1978–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.green2 sentences1988But see Dombey, 150 Ariz. at 487 , 724 P.2d at 573 , deriving from post-Sullivan and Gertz decisions the conclusion that “disregard must be more than ‘reckless’ — conscious disregard would be a better description of the test." 4 . 1988But see Dombey, 150 Ariz. at 487 , 724 P.2d at 573 , deriving from post-Sullivan and Gertz decisions the conclusion that “disregard must be more than ‘reckless’ — conscious disregard would be a better description of the test." 4 . | 1 | 2 |
Selby v. Savardgreen1 sentence2022New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974); Selby v. Savard, 134 Ariz. 222, 225 (1982) (citing Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80 ; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342 ); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 150 Ariz. 476, 487 (1986) (“The disregard must be more than ‘reckless’—conscious disregard would be a better description of the test.”). | 1 | 1 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2022New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974); Selby v. Savard, 134 Ariz. 222, 225 (1982) (citing Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80 ; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342 ); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 150 Ariz. 476, 487 (1986) (“The disregard must be more than ‘reckless’—conscious disregard would be a better description of the test.”). 2022New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974); Selby v. Savard, 134 Ariz. 222, 225 (1982) (citing Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80 ; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342 ); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 150 Ariz. 476, 487 (1986) (“The disregard must be more than ‘reckless’—conscious disregard would be a better description of the test.”). | 1 | 1 |
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.green2 sentences2022New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974); Selby v. Savard, 134 Ariz. 222, 225 (1982) (citing Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80 ; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342 ); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 150 Ariz. 476, 487 (1986) (“The disregard must be more than ‘reckless’—conscious disregard would be a better description of the test.”). 2022New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974); Selby v. Savard, 134 Ariz. 222, 225 (1982) (citing Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80 ; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342 ); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 150 Ariz. 476, 487 (1986) (“The disregard must be more than ‘reckless’—conscious disregard would be a better description of the test.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.green2 sentences1988But see Dombey, 150 Ariz. at 487 , 724 P.2d at 573 , deriving from post-Sullivan and Gertz decisions the conclusion that “disregard must be more than ‘reckless’ — conscious disregard would be a better description of the test." 4 . 1988But see Dombey, 150 Ariz. at 487 , 724 P.2d at 573 , deriving from post-Sullivan and Gertz decisions the conclusion that “disregard must be more than ‘reckless’ — conscious disregard would be a better description of the test." 4 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Western Seed Production Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Westinghouse specifically addressed the description requirement of former § 33-993 and did not prescribe a standard for the subsequently enacted § 33-992.01(C). 119 Ariz. at 379 , 580 P.2d at 1233 ; see also 1966 Ariz. Sess. 2011Westinghouse specifically addressed the description requirement of former § 33-993 and did not prescribe a standard for the subsequently enacted § 33-992.01(C). 119 Ariz. at 379 , 580 P.2d at 1233 ; see also 1966 Ariz. Sess. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Dassinger v. Oden
green
2 sentences1990Four years later, this court narrowed the meaning of "claim." In Dassinger v. *465 Oden, 124 Ariz. 551 , 606 P.2d 41 (App. 1979), the claim letter, after first setting forth a description of the claim, itemized $1,300.00 for medical expenses, $1,800.00 for future medical expenses, and $200.00 for mileage, but did not place a value on the claim for wages, pain and mental anguish, and inconvenience. 1990Four years later, this court narrowed the meaning of "claim." In Dassinger v. *465 Oden, 124 Ariz. 551 , 606 P.2d 41 (App. 1979), the claim letter, after first setting forth a description of the claim, itemized $1,300.00 for medical expenses, $1,800.00 for future medical expenses, and $200.00 for mileage, but did not place a value on the claim for wages, pain and mental anguish, and inconvenience. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Robison
green
2 sentences1988Robison’s conviction was overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court in State v. Robison, 125 Ariz. 107 , 608 P.2d 44 (1980). 5 . 1988Robison’s conviction was overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court in State v. Robison, 125 Ariz. 107 , 608 P.2d 44 (1980). 5 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Larsen v. Cady
green
1 sentence1981Larsen v. Cady, 274 N.W.2d 907 (Iowa 1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc.
green
2 sentences1978A.R.S. § 33-993(2) provides that the notice and claim of lien contain “. the name of the person by whom the lienor was employed or to whom he furnished materials.” Unlike the description requirement of the notice and claim of lien, this provision is primarily for the benefit of the owner in order that he can “investigate the claim and determine whether it is a proper charge.” Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank of Arizona, 2 Ariz.App. 321 , 408 P.2d 841 (1966); Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc., 66 Nev. 360 , 212 P.2d 718 (1949). 1978A.R.S. § 33-993(2) provides that the notice and claim of lien contain “. the name of the person by whom the lienor was employed or to whom he furnished materials.” Unlike the description requirement of the notice and claim of lien, this provision is primarily for the benefit of the owner in order that he can “investigate the claim and determine whether it is a proper charge.” Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank of Arizona, 2 Ariz.App. 321 , 408 P.2d 841 (1966); Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc., 66 Nev. 360 , 212 P.2d 718 (1949). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences1978A.R.S. § 33-993(2) provides that the notice and claim of lien contain “. the name of the person by whom the lienor was employed or to whom he furnished materials.” Unlike the description requirement of the notice and claim of lien, this provision is primarily for the benefit of the owner in order that he can “investigate the claim and determine whether it is a proper charge.” Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank of Arizona, 2 Ariz.App. 321 , 408 P.2d 841 (1966); Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc., 66 Nev. 360 , 212 P.2d 718 (1949). 1978A.R.S. § 33-993(2) provides that the notice and claim of lien contain “. the name of the person by whom the lienor was employed or to whom he furnished materials.” Unlike the description requirement of the notice and claim of lien, this provision is primarily for the benefit of the owner in order that he can “investigate the claim and determine whether it is a proper charge.” Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank of Arizona, 2 Ariz.App. 321 , 408 P.2d 841 (1966); Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc., 66 Nev. 360 , 212 P.2d 718 (1949). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.