factual basis claim in Arizona

2018P. 18.4(a) (noting “[a] party may challenge the panel on the ground that its selection involved a material departure from the requirements of law,” but “must be in writing, specify the factual basis for the challenge, and make a showing of prejudice to the party”); State v. Thomas, 133 Ariz. 533, 537 (1982) (“[A]bsent some showing of abuse and resulting prejudice, Rule 18.4(a) does not require reversal so long as a party’s right to an impartial jury is not impaired.”).

2016Identity of interests and virtually complete communication and mutual support could hardly be more strongly shown.” Id. at 150; see also Williams, 553 F. Supp. at 1026 (stating identity of interest test was met when parties were represented by the same attorney); Farmer, 788 P.2d at 49-50 (same). ¶50 Applying these principles, the County had adequate notice of the 2013 appeal under the identity of interest test.

2016Identity of interests and virtually complete communication and mutual support could hardly be more strongly shown.” Id. at 150 ; see also Williams, 553 F.Supp. at 1026 (stating identity of interest test was met when parties were represented by the same attorney); Farmer, 788 P.2d at 49-50 (same). ¶ 50 Applying these principles, the County had adequate notice of the 2013 appeal under the identity of interest test.

2016Identity of interests and virtually complete communication and mutual support could hardly be more strongly shown.” Id. at 150; see also Williams, 553 F. Supp. at 1026 (stating identity of interest test was met when parties were represented by the same attorney); Farmer, 788 P.2d at 49-50 (same). ¶50 Applying these principles, the County had adequate notice of the 2013 appeal under the identity of interest test.

2016Identity of interests and virtually complete communication and mutual support could hardly be more strongly shown.” Id. at 150 ; see also Williams, 553 F.Supp. at 1026 (stating identity of interest test was met when parties were represented by the same attorney); Farmer, 788 P.2d at 49-50 (same). ¶ 50 Applying these principles, the County had adequate notice of the 2013 appeal under the identity of interest test.

2015See State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23, 25 , 633 P.2d 432, 434 (App. 1981) (holding court may consider the extended record, including presentence report, in determining whether sufficient factual basis exists for guilty plea).

2015See State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23, 25 , 633 P.2d 432, 434 (App. 1981) (holding court may consider the extended record, including presentence report, in determining whether sufficient factual basis exists for guilty plea).

2003Thus, the length of time the case was prosecuted, the extent of the discovery, the evidence of improper purpose for the filing of the suit, and the prospect of a failure to meet the burden of proof all work to create a factual basis for a claim of "favorable termination." ¶ 55 In Frey , the court made it clear that "there is no bright line which can be drawn to determine when a termination on less than adjudication of the merits is favorable." 150 Ariz. at 110 , 722 P.2d at 278 (emphasis added).

2003Thus, the length of time the case was prosecuted, the extent of the discovery, the evidence of improper purpose for the filing of the suit, and the prospect of a failure to meet the burden of proof all work to create a factual basis for a claim of "favorable termination." ¶ 55 In Frey , the court made it clear that "there is no bright line which can be drawn to determine when a termination on less than adjudication of the merits is favorable." 150 Ariz. at 110 , 722 P.2d at 278 (emphasis added).

1987See Rule 17.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 455 , 543 P.2d 441, 443 (1975).

1987See Rule 17.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 455 , 543 P.2d 441, 443 (1975).

1979The Washington Supreme Court has stated: “The factual basis requirement * * * does not mean the trial court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is in fact guilty. ‘It should be enough if there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that he is guilty.’ ” State v. Newton, 87 Wash.2d 363, 370 , 552 P.2d 682, 686 (1976) quoting United States v. Webb, 433 F.2d 400, 402 (1st Cir. 1970).

1979The Washington Supreme Court has stated: “The factual basis requirement * * * does not mean the trial court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is in fact guilty. ‘It should be enough if there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that he is guilty.’ ” State v. Newton, 87 Wash.2d 363, 370 , 552 P.2d 682, 686 (1976) quoting United States v. Webb, 433 F.2d 400, 402 (1st Cir. 1970).

1979The Washington Supreme Court has stated: “The factual basis requirement * * * does not mean the trial court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is in fact guilty. ‘It should be enough if there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that he is guilty.’ ” State v. Newton, 87 Wash.2d 363, 370 , 552 P.2d 682, 686 (1976) quoting United States v. Webb, 433 F.2d 400, 402 (1st Cir. 1970).

1977State v. Norris, supra; see also North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).

1977State v. Norris, supra; see also North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).