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 1939–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cruzgreen1 sentence2020"Exclusion of a single juror in violation of Batson requires a new trial." State v. Cruz, 175 Ariz. 395, 400 (1993) (collecting cases). ¶13 Batson sets forth a three-step process to determine if a peremptory strike violates equal protection. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gaygreen2 sentences2020Gay, 214 Ariz. at 220, ¶ 17 . ¶14 "First, the party challenging the strike must make a prima facie showing that the strike was based on race." Id. 2020Gay, 214 Ariz. at 220, ¶ 17 . ¶14 "First, the party challenging the strike must make a prima facie showing that the strike was based on race." Id. | 1 | 1 |
Bush v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Buck, 415 S.E.2d at 232 ; People v. Brown, 597 N.Y.S.2d 434, 435 (App.Div.1993); Bush v. State, 615 So.2d 137, 140 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Joiner, 618 So.2d at 176 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence1993Buck, 415 S.E.2d at 232 ; People v. Brown, 597 N.Y.S.2d 434, 435 (App.Div.1993); Bush v. State, 615 So.2d 137, 140 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Joiner, 618 So.2d at 176 . | 1 | 1 |
Buchanan v. Stategreen2 sentences1991See Buchanan v. State, 263 Ind. 360 , 332 N.E.2d 213, 218 (1975) (juror who admitted violating court’s admonition about discussing the case dismissed over defendant’s objection). 1991See Buchanan v. State, 263 Ind. 360 , 332 N.E.2d 213, 218 (1975) (juror who admitted violating court’s admonition about discussing the case dismissed over defendant’s objection). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pearsongreen2 sentences1977The following language taken from Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seattle Electric Co., 75 Wash. 430 , 134 P. 1097 (1913), and quoted with approval by this court in the criminal case of State v. Pearson, 98 Ariz. 133, 136 , 402 P.2d 557, 560 (1965), is dispositive of appellant’s claim of error: “Whatever the breadth of the application of the rule as to the inadmissibility of the affidavits of jurors to establish their misconduct, it is almost universally held that affidavits of third persons as to unsworn statements of jurors tending to show either the fact of misconduct or its effect upon the verdic 1977The following language taken from Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seattle Electric Co., 75 Wash. 430 , 134 P. 1097 (1913), and quoted with approval by this court in the criminal case of State v. Pearson, 98 Ariz. 133, 136 , 402 P.2d 557, 560 (1965), is dispositive of appellant’s claim of error: “Whatever the breadth of the application of the rule as to the inadmissibility of the affidavits of jurors to establish their misconduct, it is almost universally held that affidavits of third persons as to unsworn statements of jurors tending to show either the fact of misconduct or its effect upon the verdic | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2017A. Batson Challenge. ¶7 Defendant first challenges the State’s peremptory strike of a juror as a violation of his rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. MacDonald
green
2 sentences1993MacDonald, 110 Ariz. at 154 , 515 P.2d at 1174 . 1993MacDonald, 110 Ariz. at 154 , 515 P.2d at 1174 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Buck v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1993Buck, 415 S.E.2d at 232 ; People v. Brown, 597 N.Y.S.2d 434, 435 (App.Div.1993); Bush v. State, 615 So.2d 137, 140 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Joiner, 618 So.2d at 176 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Joiner v. State
green
1 sentence1993Buck, 415 S.E.2d at 232 ; People v. Brown, 597 N.Y.S.2d 434, 435 (App.Div.1993); Bush v. State, 615 So.2d 137, 140 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Joiner, 618 So.2d at 176 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seattle Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1977The following language taken from Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seattle Electric Co., 75 Wash. 430 , 134 P. 1097 (1913), and quoted with approval by this court in the criminal case of State v. Pearson, 98 Ariz. 133, 136 , 402 P.2d 557, 560 (1965), is dispositive of appellant’s claim of error: “Whatever the breadth of the application of the rule as to the inadmissibility of the affidavits of jurors to establish their misconduct, it is almost universally held that affidavits of third persons as to unsworn statements of jurors tending to show either the fact of misconduct or its effect upon the verdic 1977The following language taken from Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seattle Electric Co., 75 Wash. 430 , 134 P. 1097 (1913), and quoted with approval by this court in the criminal case of State v. Pearson, 98 Ariz. 133, 136 , 402 P.2d 557, 560 (1965), is dispositive of appellant’s claim of error: “Whatever the breadth of the application of the rule as to the inadmissibility of the affidavits of jurors to establish their misconduct, it is almost universally held that affidavits of third persons as to unsworn statements of jurors tending to show either the fact of misconduct or its effect upon the verdic | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Stentz
red
2 sentences1939State v. Stents, 30 Wash. 134 , 70 Pac. 241 , 63 L. 1939State v. Stents, 30 Wash. 134 , 70 Pac. 241 , 63 L. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
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.