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 1970–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Singer v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007See e.g., Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 34-38 , 85 S.Ct. 783 , 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965); State v. Durham, 111 Ariz. 19, 20 , 523 P.2d 47, 48 (1974). 2 According to the State, therefore, “[i]f the Legislature had intended to do something as innovative as creating a jury trial right solely for defendants in a criminal matter ... it would have done so in clearer language than that used in A.R.S. § 28-1381(F).” ¶ 13 We reject the State’s contention. 2007See e.g., Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 34-38 , 85 S.Ct. 783 , 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965); State v. Durham, 111 Ariz. 19, 20 , 523 P.2d 47, 48 (1974). 2 According to the State, therefore, “[i]f the Legislature had intended to do something as innovative as creating a jury trial right solely for defendants in a criminal matter ... it would have done so in clearer language than that used in A.R.S. § 28-1381(F).” ¶ 13 We reject the State’s contention. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Durhamgreen2 sentences2007See e.g., Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 34-38 , 85 S.Ct. 783 , 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965); State v. Durham, 111 Ariz. 19, 20 , 523 P.2d 47, 48 (1974). 2 According to the State, therefore, “[i]f the Legislature had intended to do something as innovative as creating a jury trial right solely for defendants in a criminal matter ... it would have done so in clearer language than that used in A.R.S. § 28-1381(F).” ¶ 13 We reject the State’s contention. 2007See e.g., Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 34-38 , 85 S.Ct. 783 , 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965); State v. Durham, 111 Ariz. 19, 20 , 523 P.2d 47, 48 (1974). 2 According to the State, therefore, “[i]f the Legislature had intended to do something as innovative as creating a jury trial right solely for defendants in a criminal matter ... it would have done so in clearer language than that used in A.R.S. § 28-1381(F).” ¶ 13 We reject the State’s contention. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Agnewgreen2 sentences1992State v. Agnew, 132 Ariz. 567, 577 , 647 P.2d 1165, 1175 (App.1982). 2 The state also points out that the doctrine appears in the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions—Criminal § 10.-035 (1989). 1992State v. Agnew, 132 Ariz. 567, 577 , 647 P.2d 1165, 1175 (App.1982). 2 The state also points out that the doctrine appears in the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions—Criminal § 10.-035 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Verivegreen2 sentences1992That court also mentioned the doctrine, in dicta, in State v. Verive, 128 Ariz. 570, 580-81 , 627 P.2d 721, 731-32 (App.1981) and, in a later case, upheld the propriety of instructing the jury *499 on the doctrine in the face of a claim that it constituted a comment on the evidence. 1992That court also mentioned the doctrine, in dicta, in State v. Verive, 128 Ariz. 570, 580-81 , 627 P.2d 721, 731-32 (App.1981) and, in a later case, upheld the propriety of instructing the jury *499 on the doctrine in the face of a claim that it constituted a comment on the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Raymond Edward Parks v. Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor of the City of Atlantagreen1 sentence1980In the face of a claim of denial of equal protection, it is necessary only that the classification “[Hjave some natural and reasonable basis and relationship to the object to be accomplished .... ” State v. Norcross, 26 Ariz.App. 115 , 546 P.2d 840 (1976); see also Parks v. Allen, 409 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1969), appeal after remand, 426 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Raymond Edward Parks v. Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor of the City of Atlantagreen1 sentence1980In the face of a claim of denial of equal protection, it is necessary only that the classification “[Hjave some natural and reasonable basis and relationship to the object to be accomplished .... ” State v. Norcross, 26 Ariz.App. 115 , 546 P.2d 840 (1976); see also Parks v. Allen, 409 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1969), appeal after remand, 426 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Barry Escott and Others v. Barchris Construction Corporation, and Others, Defendants-Respondents, Georgehall, and Others, Intervenors-Appellantsgreen2 sentences1973"As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide `a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.' Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper class 1973“As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide 'a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.’ Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper clas | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robert E. Mann Construction Co. v. Liebert Corp.
green
2 sentences2015Id. ¶ 12 In 2012, a group of petitioners proposed changes to Rule 21 “to make it clear on the face of the rule that [fee claimants] must specifically cite — at the time of a fee request on appeal — the ... authority authorizing an award of fees.” Arizona Rule Petition No. R-10-0033, at 1 (petition for Rule 21 changes; 2012 amendment). 2015The petitioners argued that, inconsistent with existing case law, the then-current Rule 21 did “not alert a practitioner that the request for attorneys’ fees must not only be timely asserted on appeal but must also include the authority for an award of fees.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Belcher
green
2 sentences1992State v. Parker, 113 Ariz. 560 , 558 P.2d 905 (1976); State v. Belcher, 161 Ariz. 133 , 776 P.2d 811 (App.1989). 1992State v. Parker, 113 Ariz. 560 , 558 P.2d 905 (1976); State v. Belcher, 161 Ariz. 133 , 776 P.2d 811 (App.1989). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences1992State v. Parker, 113 Ariz. 560 , 558 P.2d 905 (1976); State v. Belcher, 161 Ariz. 133 , 776 P.2d 811 (App.1989). 1992State v. Parker, 113 Ariz. 560 , 558 P.2d 905 (1976); State v. Belcher, 161 Ariz. 133 , 776 P.2d 811 (App.1989). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Norcross
green
2 sentences1980In the face of a claim of denial of equal protection, it is necessary only that the classification “[Hjave some natural and reasonable basis and relationship to the object to be accomplished .... ” State v. Norcross, 26 Ariz.App. 115 , 546 P.2d 840 (1976); see also Parks v. Allen, 409 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1969), appeal after remand, 426 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1970). 1980In the face of a claim of denial of equal protection, it is necessary only that the classification “[Hjave some natural and reasonable basis and relationship to the object to be accomplished .... ” State v. Norcross, 26 Ariz.App. 115 , 546 P.2d 840 (1976); see also Parks v. Allen, 409 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1969), appeal after remand, 426 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1970). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
green
1 sentence1973"As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide `a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.' Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper class | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Rucker v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1973"As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide `a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.' Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper class 1973“As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide 'a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.’ Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper clas | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Hitai v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
green
2 sentences1973"As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide `a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.' Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper class 1973“As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide 'a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.’ Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper clas | 1 | 1973–1973 |
V. L. Smithers Manufacturing Co. v. O'Brien
green
2 sentences1973"As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide `a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.' Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper class 1973“As has previously been stated, one of the primary functions of the class suit is to provide 'a device for vindicating claims which, taken individually, are too small to justify legal action but which are of significant size if taken as a group.’ Escott v. Barchris Construction Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816 , 86 S.Ct. 37 , 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). * * * Indeed, we hold that the new rule should be given a liberal rather than a restrictive interpretation, * * * and that the dismissal in limine of a particular proceeding as not a proper clas | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi
green
2 sentences1970Other cases which have sustained state regulations in the face of a claim of governmental immunity are: Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 , 84 S.Ct. 378 , 11 L.Ed.2d 389 (1964); Railway Mail Ass’n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 , 65 S.Ct. 1483 , 89 L.Ed. 2072 (1945). 1970Other cases which have sustained state regulations in the face of a claim of governmental immunity are: Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 , 84 S.Ct. 378 , 11 L.Ed.2d 389 (1964); Railway Mail Ass’n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 , 65 S.Ct. 1483 , 89 L.Ed. 2072 (1945). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Public Util. Comm'n of Cal. v. United States
green
2 sentences1970In the case of Public Utilities Commission of State of California v. United States, 355 U.S. 534 , 78 S.Ct. 446 , 2 L.Ed.2d 470 (1958), the Court indicated that only when there is a clear conflict between the federal policy and the state regulation the latter must yield. 1970In the case of Public Utilities Commission of State of California v. United States, 355 U.S. 534 , 78 S.Ct. 446 , 2 L.Ed.2d 470 (1958), the Court indicated that only when there is a clear conflict between the federal policy and the state regulation the latter must yield. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews
green
2 sentences1970Other cases which have sustained state regulations in the face of a claim of governmental immunity are: Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 , 84 S.Ct. 378 , 11 L.Ed.2d 389 (1964); Railway Mail Ass’n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 , 65 S.Ct. 1483 , 89 L.Ed. 2072 (1945). 1970Other cases which have sustained state regulations in the face of a claim of governmental immunity are: Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 , 84 S.Ct. 378 , 11 L.Ed.2d 389 (1964); Railway Mail Ass’n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 , 65 S.Ct. 1483 , 89 L.Ed. 2072 (1945). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.