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 1910–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lock v. City of Imperialgreen1 sentence2015Opinion of the Court making claim against the State”); see also Lock v. City of Imperial, 155 N.W.2d 924, 924 (Neb. 1968) (determining that the “parent municipal corporation” was not liable for the airport authority’s torts because the airport authority “is a supplementary, separate, and independent public corporation”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs
green
2 sentences1984Of particular importance to the case at bench, the Supreme Court expressly held that "constitutionally permissible limits may vary in different contexts; in other contexts, such as a claim by a state censor that a movie is obscene, the Constitution may impose different requirements with respect to the time between the making of the claim and the institution of judicial proceedings or between their commencement and completion than in the context of a claim of obscenity made by custom officials at the border." 402 U.S. at 374 , 91 S.Ct. at 1407. 1984Of particular importance to the case at bench, the Supreme Court expressly held that “constitutionally permissible limits may vary in different contexts; in other contexts, such as a claim by a state censor that a movie is obscene, the Constitution may impose different requirements with respect to the time between the making of the claim and the institution of judicial proceedings or between their commencement and completion than in the context of a claim of obscenity made by custom officials at the border.” 402 U.S. at 374 , 91 S.Ct. at 1407. | 2 | 1984–1984 |
Stine v. Continental Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1994"The timing of the making of the claim in such policies stands in equal importance with the error or omission as the insured event." Stine, 349 N.W.2d at 134 . 1994“The timing of the making of the claim in such policies stands in equal importance with the error or omission as the insured event.” Stine, 349 N.W.2d at 134 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Garfield v. United States Ex Rel. Allison
green
1 sentence1971The establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative, not judicial, in kind * * 211 U.S. at page 226 , 29 S.Ct. at page 69 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Robert R. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Company
green
1 sentence1971The establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative, not judicial, in kind * * 211 U.S. at page 226 , 29 S.Ct. at page 69 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Steward v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1966Even without such a statute as A.R.S. § 23-1024, most courts have come to the conclusion that if workmen’s compensation and an action in tort against the employer are inconsistent remedies, then the pursuing of one as far as has been done in this case, so that an award has been rendered which is res judicata as between the parties, Steward v. Industrial Commission, 69 Ariz. 159 , 211 P.2d 217 (1949), precludes the claimant from proceeding in the other direction. 1966Even without such a statute as A.R.S. § 23-1024, most courts have come to the conclusion that if workmen’s compensation and an action in tort against the employer are inconsistent remedies, then the pursuing of one as far as has been done in this case, so that an award has been rendered which is res judicata as between the parties, Steward v. Industrial Commission, 69 Ariz. 159 , 211 P.2d 217 (1949), precludes the claimant from proceeding in the other direction. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Kalina v. Union Pacific Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1910Supp. 134 , Kalina v. Railroad Co., 69 Kan. 172 , 76 Pac. 438 , A., T. & S. F. Ry. 1910Supp. 134 , Kalina v. Railroad Co., 69 Kan. 172 , 76 Pac. 438 , A., T. & S. F. Ry. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Osterhoudt v. Southern Pacific Co.
neutral
2 sentences1910An averment showing the making of the claim under oath, and the delivery of it, as required by the contract, is a conxlition precedent, and is necessary to constitute a good cause of action.” See, also, Osterhoudt v. Southern Pacific Co., 47 App. Div. 146 , 62 N. Y. 1910An averment showing the making of the claim under oath, and the delivery of it, as required by the contract, is a conxlition precedent, and is necessary to constitute a good cause of action.” See, also, Osterhoudt v. Southern Pacific Co., 47 App. Div. 146 , 62 N. Y. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.