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 1964–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Tiffany O.green2 sentences2017Evid., requires that an objection be made with specificity so as “to allow the adverse party to obviate the objection and to permit the trial court to intelligently rule on the objection and avoid error.” In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, ¶ 5 , 174 P.3d 282, 284 (App. 2007), quoting Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Prods. 2017Evid., requires that an objection be made with specificity so as “to allow the adverse party to obviate the objection and to permit the trial court to intelligently rule on the objection and avoid error.” In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, ¶ 5 , 174 P.3d 282, 284 (App. 2007), quoting Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Prods. | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co.green2 sentences2017Co., 187 Ariz. 121, 129 , 927 P.2d 781, 789 (App. 1996). 2017Co., 187 Ariz. 121, 129 , 927 P.2d 781, 789 (App. 1996). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences2014State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, ¶¶ 29-30 , 66 P.3d 50, 56 (2003) (specific objection allows ‘“the trial court to rectify possible error ... and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible’”), quoting State v. Hoffman, 78 Ariz. 319, 325 , 279 P.2d 898, 901 (1955); see also In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, ¶ 5 , 174 P.3d 282, 284 (App.2007). ¶20 Before Granados took the stand, his attorneys recognized he likely would “spout[ ] out irrelevant stuff’ while testifying. 2014State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, ¶¶ 29-30 , 66 P.3d 50, 56 (2003) (specific objection allows ‘“the trial court to rectify possible error ... and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible’”), quoting State v. Hoffman, 78 Ariz. 319, 325 , 279 P.2d 898, 901 (1955); see also In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, ¶ 5 , 174 P.3d 282, 284 (App.2007). ¶20 Before Granados took the stand, his attorneys recognized he likely would “spout[ ] out irrelevant stuff’ while testifying. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rutledgegreen2 sentences2014State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, ¶¶ 29-30 , 66 P.3d 50, 56 (2003) (specific objection allows ‘“the trial court to rectify possible error ... and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible’”), quoting State v. Hoffman, 78 Ariz. 319, 325 , 279 P.2d 898, 901 (1955); see also In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, ¶ 5 , 174 P.3d 282, 284 (App.2007). ¶20 Before Granados took the stand, his attorneys recognized he likely would “spout[ ] out irrelevant stuff’ while testifying. 2014State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, ¶¶ 29-30 , 66 P.3d 50, 56 (2003) (specific objection allows ‘“the trial court to rectify possible error ... and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible’”), quoting State v. Hoffman, 78 Ariz. 319, 325 , 279 P.2d 898, 901 (1955); see also In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, ¶ 5 , 174 P.3d 282, 284 (App.2007). ¶20 Before Granados took the stand, his attorneys recognized he likely would “spout[ ] out irrelevant stuff’ while testifying. | 1 | 1 |
Packard v. Reidheadgreen2 sentences1996Packard v. Reidhead, 22 Ariz.App. 420, 423 , 528 P.2d 171, 174 (1974). 1996Packard v. Reidhead, 22 Ariz.App. 420, 423 , 528 P.2d 171, 174 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dynatron Corp. v. United States Rubber Co.
green
2 sentences1965The basis of the rule was aptly stated in Dynatron Corp. v. United States Rubber Co., [D.C.] 27 F.R.D. 480 , 481: '* * * there must be at least a designation by categories and the categories must be defined with sufficient particularity (i) to enable the opposing party intelligently to state any grounds of objection it may have to the requested production, and (ii) to enable the Court intelligently to rule on such objections.’" 97 Ariz. 122 , 397 P.2d 624 at 626 . 1964The basis of the rule was aptly stated in Dynatron Corp. v. United States Rubber Co., 27 F.R.D. 480 , 481: "* * * there must be at least a designation by categories and the categories must be defined with sufficient particularity (i) to enable the opposing party intelligently to state any grounds of objection it may have to the requested production, and (ii) to enable the Court intelligently to rule on such objections." In the instant case, respondent asserts that it has specifically designated a single file by its case number and that this satisfies the specificity requirements of Rule 34. | 2 | 1964–1965 |
State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1969State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts, 97 Ariz. 169 , 398 P.2d 671 (1965). 1969State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts, 97 Ariz. 169 , 398 P.2d 671 (1965). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Industrial Commission v. Holohan
green
2 sentences1965The basis of the rule was aptly stated in Dynatron Corp. v. United States Rubber Co., [D.C.] 27 F.R.D. 480 , 481: '* * * there must be at least a designation by categories and the categories must be defined with sufficient particularity (i) to enable the opposing party intelligently to state any grounds of objection it may have to the requested production, and (ii) to enable the Court intelligently to rule on such objections.’" 97 Ariz. 122 , 397 P.2d 624 at 626 . 1965The basis of the rule was aptly stated in Dynatron Corp. v. United States Rubber Co., [D.C.] 27 F.R.D. 480 , 481: '* * * there must be at least a designation by categories and the categories must be defined with sufficient particularity (i) to enable the opposing party intelligently to state any grounds of objection it may have to the requested production, and (ii) to enable the Court intelligently to rule on such objections.’" 97 Ariz. 122 , 397 P.2d 624 at 626 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.