7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences2016Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 , 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App.2004). ¶ 6 As relevant here, § 8-533(B)(4) provides that a parent’s rights may be terminated if “the parent is deprived of civil liberties due to the conviction of a felony ... [and] the sentence of that parent is of such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years.” In Michael J., our supreme court set out a non-exclusive list of factors for courts to consider in determining if a parent’s prison sentence will deprive a child of “a normal home for a period of years”: (1) the length and strength of any parent-ch 2016Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 , 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App.2004). ¶ 6 As relevant here, § 8-533(B)(4) provides that a parent’s rights may be terminated if “the parent is deprived of civil liberties due to the conviction of a felony ... [and] the sentence of that parent is of such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years.” In Michael J., our supreme court set out a non-exclusive list of factors for courts to consider in determining if a parent’s prison sentence will deprive a child of “a normal home for a period of years”: (1) the length and strength of any parent-ch | 2 | 3 |
Granville v. Howardgreen2 sentences2017Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 571 (1985) (quoting Davis v. Davis, 78 Ariz. 174, 179 (1954) (Windes, J., specially concurring)). ¶10 In Granville v. Howard, 236 Ariz. 29, 32, ¶ 11 (App. 2014), this court set out a non-exclusive list of factors the superior court should consider when making a fee award under Rule 77(f). 2017These factors include "[t]he amount in controversy"; "[t]he amount of fees the requesting party is obligated to pay his or her lawyer"; and "[w]hether the requested fees were necessarily incurred or whether it appears that some fees were generated because of the prospect of a fee-shifting award under Rule 77(f)." Granville, 236 Ariz. at 32, ¶ 11 . ¶11 Petrovich argues the court erred by reducing Wolf's hourly rate to $200 because the only evidence in the record regarding reasonable hourly rates established a reasonable rate to be $350. | 2 | 2 |
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences2016Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 , 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App.2004). ¶ 6 As relevant here, § 8-533(B)(4) provides that a parent’s rights may be terminated if “the parent is deprived of civil liberties due to the conviction of a felony ... [and] the sentence of that parent is of such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years.” In Michael J., our supreme court set out a non-exclusive list of factors for courts to consider in determining if a parent’s prison sentence will deprive a child of “a normal home for a period of years”: (1) the length and strength of any parent-ch 2016Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 , 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App.2004). ¶ 6 As relevant here, § 8-533(B)(4) provides that a parent’s rights may be terminated if “the parent is deprived of civil liberties due to the conviction of a felony ... [and] the sentence of that parent is of such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years.” In Michael J., our supreme court set out a non-exclusive list of factors for courts to consider in determining if a parent’s prison sentence will deprive a child of “a normal home for a period of years”: (1) the length and strength of any parent-ch | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Davisgreen1 sentence2017Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 571 (1985) (quoting Davis v. Davis, 78 Ariz. 174, 179 (1954) (Windes, J., specially concurring)). ¶10 In Granville v. Howard, 236 Ariz. 29, 32, ¶ 11 (App. 2014), this court set out a non-exclusive list of factors the superior court should consider when making a fee award under Rule 77(f). | 1 | 1 |
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warnergreen1 sentence2017Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 571 (1985) (quoting Davis v. Davis, 78 Ariz. 174, 179 (1954) (Windes, J., specially concurring)). ¶10 In Granville v. Howard, 236 Ariz. 29, 32, ¶ 11 (App. 2014), this court set out a non-exclusive list of factors the superior court should consider when making a fee award under Rule 77(f). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edith Libutti, Doing Business as Lion Crest Stable, a Sole Proprietorship v. United States
green
1 sentence2024But our court has never addressed whether the trial judge may consider evidence of a nonparty’s assertion of his or her Fifth Amendment rights, and, if so, whether the court may draw an adverse inference against a party from this evidence. ¶17 Other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue relied on a non-exclusive list of factors identified in LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . *299 ¶24 To assist courts in evaluating the reliability of expert testimony, Daubert set forth a non-exclusive list of factors. 2014Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . *299 ¶24 To assist courts in evaluating the reliability of expert testimony, Daubert set forth a non-exclusive list of factors. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.