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 1950–1973 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 |
|---|---|---|
Camelback Land & Investment Co. v. Phoenix Entertainment Corp.green2 sentences1971See Camelback Land & Investment Co. v. Phoenix Entertainment Corp., 2 Ariz.App. 250 , 407 P.2d 791 (1965), where the lessor was held bound by the express remedy for breach contained in the lease; See also, Baird, A Study of Arizona Lease Terminations, 9 Ariz.L.Rev. 187 (1967) where an excellent analysis of the statutes and case law is found. 1971See Camelback Land & Investment Co. v. Phoenix Entertainment Corp., 2 Ariz.App. 250 , 407 P.2d 791 (1965), where the lessor was held bound by the express remedy for breach contained in the lease; See also, Baird, A Study of Arizona Lease Terminations, 9 Ariz.L.Rev. 187 (1967) where an excellent analysis of the statutes and case law is found. | 1 | 1 |
Republic of Italy v. De Angelisgreen1 sentence1969See Republic of Italy v. DeAngelis, 206 F.2d 121, 129-132 (2d Cir.1953) (concurring opinion) for an excellent analysis of the cause of action. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estin v. Estin
green
2 sentences1973IV, Sec. 1, citing the historic case of Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 , 68 S.Ct. 1213 , 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948) and our own White v. White, 83 Ariz. 305 , 320 P.2d 702 (1958) among others. 1973IV, Sec. 1, citing the historic case of Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 , 68 S.Ct. 1213 , 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948) and our own White v. White, 83 Ariz. 305 , 320 P.2d 702 (1958) among others. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
White v. White
green
2 sentences1973IV, Sec. 1, citing the historic case of Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 , 68 S.Ct. 1213 , 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948) and our own White v. White, 83 Ariz. 305 , 320 P.2d 702 (1958) among others. 1973IV, Sec. 1, citing the historic case of Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 , 68 S.Ct. 1213 , 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948) and our own White v. White, 83 Ariz. 305 , 320 P.2d 702 (1958) among others. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Gosewisch v. Doran
green
2 sentences1971Although the court relied in part upon Section 47 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which expressly declares privileged a publication in any judicial proceeding, a statute which Arizona has not enacted, Justice Traynor explained that Section 47 was merely a reiteration of the rule at common law, “ * * * that publications made in the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged.” In support of this proposition, he cited among others Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-515 , 119 P. 656 (1911), which contains-an excellent analysis of the question, and the Restatement of Tor 1971Although the court relied in part upon Section 47 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which expressly declares privileged a publication in any judicial proceeding, a statute which Arizona has not enacted, Justice Traynor explained that Section 47 was merely a reiteration of the rule at common law, “ * * * that publications made in the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged.” In support of this proposition, he cited among others Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-515 , 119 P. 656 (1911), which contains-an excellent analysis of the question, and the Restatement of Tor | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Commonwealth v. Emerick
green
2 sentences1970The North Dakota Supreme Court adopted the views expressed by the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Florida (Carnegie v. Department of Public Safety, 60 So.2d 728 , Fla. 1952) ; Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388 , 96 A.2d 370 (1953) with respect to the scope of the hearing accorded the licensee in the trial court, i. e., the case is heard de novo by the court and not merely as a review of the administrative action. 1970The North Dakota Supreme Court adopted the views expressed by the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Florida (Carnegie v. Department of Public Safety, 60 So.2d 728 , Fla. 1952) ; Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388 , 96 A.2d 370 (1953) with respect to the scope of the hearing accorded the licensee in the trial court, i. e., the case is heard de novo by the court and not merely as a review of the administrative action. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Carnegie v. Department of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1970The North Dakota Supreme Court adopted the views expressed by the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Florida (Carnegie v. Department of Public Safety, 60 So.2d 728 , Fla. 1952) ; Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388 , 96 A.2d 370 (1953) with respect to the scope of the hearing accorded the licensee in the trial court, i. e., the case is heard de novo by the court and not merely as a review of the administrative action. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Conaway v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1970An excellent analysis of a statutory replica of A.R.S. § 28-451 may be found in the case of Conaway v. Thompson, 78 N.W.2d 400 (N.D.1956). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Island Express, Inc. v. Frederick
green
2 sentences1952For an excellent analysis of minority rule see the leading case of Island Express v. Frederick, 5 W.W.Harr. 569 , 35 Del. 569 , 171 A. 181, 185 . 1952For an excellent analysis of minority rule see the leading case of Island Express v. Frederick, 5 W.W.Harr. 569 , 35 Del. 569 , 171 A. 181, 185 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Inglin v. Hoppin
green
2 sentences1950For an excellent analysis of this whole matter see Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483 , 105 P. 582, 583 , where in a reclamation district case it was stated; “* * * Where discretion other than legislative is vested in such a subordinate officer or tribunal, the exercise of that discretion will be subjected to correction if it be abused. 1950For an excellent analysis of this whole matter see Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483 , 105 P. 582, 583 , where in a reclamation district case it was stated; “* * * Where discretion other than legislative is vested in such a subordinate officer or tribunal, the exercise of that discretion will be subjected to correction if it be abused. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.