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.
8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen1 sentence2019Sec., 215 Ariz. 96, 99, ¶ 9 (App. 2007) (“The interpretation of a court rule presents a question of law that we review de novo.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercadogreen1 sentence2016"We review the interpretation of a court rule de novo." Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. at 592, ¶ 4 . 2 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite a statute's current version. 3 STATE v. SAUNDERS Decision of the Court B. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2014State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 , 576 ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1279 (2012) (citation omitted). 2. ¶5 We begin our analysis with the language of Rule 702: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the e 2014State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 , 576 ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1279 (2012) (citation omitted). 2. ¶5 We begin our analysis with the language of Rule 702: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the e | 1 | 1 |
Merlina v. Jejnagreen2 sentences2007Merlina v. Jejna, 208 Ariz. 1, ¶ 7 , 90 P.3d 202, 204 (App.2004). 2007Merlina v. Jejna, 208 Ariz. 1, ¶ 7 , 90 P.3d 202, 204 (App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
ChartOne, Inc. v. Berninigreen2 sentences2006ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162, 167, ¶ 14 , 83 P.3d 1103, 1108 (App.2004). 3 . 2006ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162, 167, ¶ 14 , 83 P.3d 1103, 1108 (App.2004). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2004Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co., 196 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 4 , 993 P.2d 1087, 1088 (App. 1999). 2004Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co., 196 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 4 , 993 P.2d 1087, 1088 (App. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berninggreen2 sentences2004Berning, 201 Ariz. 228, 230, ¶ 4 , 33 P.3d 1166, 1168 (App.2001). ¶7 The interpretation of a court rule is a question of law, which we review de novo. 2004Berning, 201 Ariz. 228, 230, ¶ 4 , 33 P.3d 1166, 1168 (App.2001). ¶7 The interpretation of a court rule is a question of law, which we review de novo. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. Hon blanchard/goings
green
1 sentence2026P’ship, --- Ariz. ---, --- ¶ 12, 581 P.3d 228 , 231 (App. 2025) (“[W]e have often accepted [special action] jurisdiction to interpret legal rules.”); Kelly v. Blanchard, 255 Ariz. 197 , 200 ¶ 10 (App. 2023) (exercising discretionary special action jurisdiction because “[t]he relief requested requires the resolution of a narrow and purely legal issue involving the interpretation of a court rule”). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Cranmer v. State
green
1 sentence2025Bobrow v. Herrod, 239 Ariz. 180 , 182 ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (quoting Cranmer v. State, 204 Ariz. 299 , 301 ¶ 8 (App. 2003)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa
green
1 sentence2025Bobrow v. Herrod, 239 Ariz. 180 , 182 ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (quoting Cranmer v. State, 204 Ariz. 299 , 301 ¶ 8 (App. 2003)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.