mechanical rule (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

mechanical rule in Arizona

7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2011 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY.green
ariz · 1983 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984We did not, and will not today, set out a mechanical test to be applied to find whether the state has complied with due process requirements because "what is required to make a `fair presentation' to the grand jury... will vary from case to case." Id. at 44 , 668 P.2d at 887 (Feldman, J., specially concurring).

1984We did not, and will not today, set out a mechanical test to be applied to find whether the state has complied with due process requirements because "what is required to make a `fair presentation' to the grand jury... will vary from case to case." Id. at 44 , 668 P.2d at 887 (Feldman, J., specially concurring).

22
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsongreen
scotus · 1980 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009The logical result of the State’s contention is that Western Union’s “debt” to the Sonoran recipient is simultaneously located in every state in which Western Union can be sued. ¶ 26 The Supreme Court has stated, however, that Shaffer “interred the mechanical rule that a creditor’s amenability to a quasi in rem action travels with his debtor.” World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 296 , 100 S.Ct. 559 ; see also id. (stating that Shaffer “abandoned the outworn rule of Harris v. Balk, that the interest of a creditor in a debt could be extinguished or otherwise affected by any State having transitor

2009The logical result of the State’s contention is that Western Union’s “debt” to the Sonoran recipient is simultaneously located in every state in which Western Union can be sued. ¶ 26 The Supreme Court has stated, however, that Shaffer “interred the mechanical rule that a creditor’s amenability to a quasi in rem action travels with his debtor.” World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 296 , 100 S.Ct. 559 ; see also id. (stating that Shaffer “abandoned the outworn rule of Harris v. Balk, that the interest of a creditor in a debt could be extinguished or otherwise affected by any State having transitor

11
Campbell Pet Co. v. Mialegreen
cafc · 2008 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 590-91 , 122 S.Ct. 1700 , 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (Breyer, J., concurring) (describing impossibility of confining Internet to particular geographical areas); *231 see also Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale, 542 F.3d 879, 884 (Fed.Cir.2008) (Web site information available everywhere, not confined to discrete jurisdiction or exclusively located in any one place). ¶ 53 The majority points out that the logical implication of locating a debt anywhere the debtor can be found is that the electronic credits are "simultaneously located in every state in which Western Union c

11
State v. Coconino Cty. Superior Ct., Div. IIgreen
ariz · 1984 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997As we stated in Mauro: [We have] not, and will not today, set out a mechanical test to be applied to find whether the state has complied with due process requirements because "what is required to make a `fair presentation' to the grand jury ... will vary from case to case." However, we think the guidelines set out today will more clearly define the prosecutor's duties before the grand jury. 139 Ariz. at 424 , 678 P.2d at 1388 (citations omitted).

1997As we stated in Mauro: [We have] not, and will not today, set out a mechanical test to be applied to find whether the state has complied with due process requirements because "what is required to make a `fair presentation' to the grand jury ... will vary from case to case." However, we think the guidelines set out today will more clearly define the prosecutor's duties before the grand jury. 139 Ariz. at 424 , 678 P.2d at 1388 (citations omitted).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Trebus v. Davis green
ariz · 1997
1 sentence

2011Id. at 625-26, 944 P.2d at 1239-40 .

12011–2011
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union green
scotus · 2002
2 sentences

2009Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 590-91 , 122 S.Ct. 1700 , 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (Breyer, J., concurring) (describing impossibility of confining Internet to particular geographical areas); *231 see also Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale, 542 F.3d 879, 884 (Fed.Cir.2008) (Web site information available everywhere, not confined to discrete jurisdiction or exclusively located in any one place). ¶ 53 The majority points out that the logical implication of locating a debt anywhere the debtor can be found is that the electronic credits are "simultaneously located in every state in which Western Union c

2009Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 590-91 , 122 S.Ct. 1700 , 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (Breyer, J., concurring) (describing impossibility of confining Internet to particular geographical areas); *231 see also Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale, 542 F.3d 879, 884 (Fed.Cir.2008) (Web site information available everywhere, not confined to discrete jurisdiction or exclusively located in any one place). ¶ 53 The majority points out that the logical implication of locating a debt anywhere the debtor can be found is that the electronic credits are "simultaneously located in every state in which Western Union c

12009–2009
Matlow v. Matlow green
ariz · 1961
2 sentences

1970The doctrine of recrimination, like the doctrine of unclean hands of which it is a .part, is not a mechanical doctrine but an equitable principle to be applied to the facts of each case and with a consideration for the interests of the public.” (Emphasis in original). ( 89 Ariz. at 296-297 , 361 P.2d at 650 ).

1970The doctrine of recrimination, like the doctrine of unclean hands of which it is a .part, is not a mechanical doctrine but an equitable principle to be applied to the facts of each case and with a consideration for the interests of the public.” (Emphasis in original). ( 89 Ariz. at 296-297 , 361 P.2d at 650 ).

11970–1970
De Burgh v. De Burgh green
cal · 1952
2 sentences

1961DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 39 Cal.2d 858 , 250 P. 2d 598 .

1961DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 39 Cal.2d 858 , 250 P. 2d 598 .

11961–1961

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-412 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 38 (1955–2025) PA 30 (1958–2016) MN 29 (1983–2018) IN 22 (1946–2025) IL 22 (1957–2020) WA 21 (1965–2024) NJ 20 (1976–2025) NY 18 (1948–2021) TX 11 (1923–2016) NM 11 (1988–2018) CT 8 (1985–2022) WI 8 (1968–2023) FL 8 (1983–2022) SC 8 (1997–2021) MD 8 (1972–2004) AZ 7 (1961–2011) ID 7 (1975–2002) NC 7 (1984–2016) CO 7 (1976–2025) MI 7 (1966–2009) OH 6 (1999–2018) OR 6 (1976–2014) LA 6 (1973–1989) NH 6 (1982–2025) HI 5 (1982–2007) MO 5 (1977–2007) AR 4 (1981–2008) DE 4 (1973–2021) NE 4 (1989–2025) WY 3 (1983–2011) MT 3 (2009–2014) WV 3 (1980–1982) MS 3 (1966–2024) AK 3 (1977–2026) ND 3 (1974–2007) UT 2 (1996–1996) GA 2 (2021–2023) RI 2 (1987–1989) MA 2 (1986–2009) IA 2 (1980–2015) SD 2 (1997–2001) ME 2 (1998–2025) KY 2 (1974–1978) OK 2 (1980–1994) KS 2 (1937–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check