7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Pownallgreen2 sentences2019See In re Marriage of Pownall , 197 Ariz. 577 , 580-81, ¶ 10, 5 P.3d 911 , 914-15 (App. 2000) (factors indicative of substantive unconscionability of a premarital separation agreement are "contract terms so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise an innocent party," "as well as 'an overall imbalance in the obligations and rights imposed by the bargain' " (quoting Maxwell v. Fid. 2019See In re Marriage of Pownall , 197 Ariz. 577 , 580-81, ¶ 10, 5 P.3d 911 , 914-15 (App. 2000) (factors indicative of substantive unconscionability of a premarital separation agreement are "contract terms so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise an innocent party," "as well as 'an overall imbalance in the obligations and rights imposed by the bargain' " (quoting Maxwell v. Fid. | 1 | 1 |
Post v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONAgreen1 sentence2018See 160 Ariz. at 7 (requiring ALJs to include sufficient findings to ensure that judicial review is possible). ¶16 Second, although a party seeking to challenge an ICA award in the appellate courts must first file a request for review, A.R.S. § 23-943(A), that same provision makes it clear that a party has no obligation to include any specific arguments in the request to preserve them for appellate review, id. (stating that a request for review “need only state that the party requests a review of the award” and that the request “may be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities”) (e | 1 | 1 |
Backus v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See generally Backus v. State, 220 Ariz. 101, 104, ¶ 11 (2009) (“When statutory language admits of only one interpretation, we go no further.”). ¶17 Third, CopperPoint’s reliance on Stephens v. Industrial Commission, 114 Ariz. 92 (App. 1977), is misplaced. | 1 | 1 |
Stephens v. Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence2018See generally Backus v. State, 220 Ariz. 101, 104, ¶ 11 (2009) (“When statutory language admits of only one interpretation, we go no further.”). ¶17 Third, CopperPoint’s reliance on Stephens v. Industrial Commission, 114 Ariz. 92 (App. 1977), is misplaced. | 1 | 1 |
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Lake Shore Asset Management Ltd.green1 sentence2015Ltd., 646 F.3d 401, 405 (7th Cir.2011). ¶ 10 We find no abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Tansy v. Morgangreen2 sentences1982See Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362, 364 , 604 P.2d 626, 628 (1979), citing authority for each of the prerequisites. 1982See Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362, 364 , 604 P.2d 626, 628 (1979), citing authority for each of the prerequisites. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-8545
green
1 sentence2020If that order is not a “final order” from which an appeal can be taken, it is difficult to see how, applying the same statute, the order Mother seeks to challenge here would be a “final order” from which an appeal can be taken. ¶15 “[B]ecause dependency proceedings implicate the ‘important and fundamental right to raise one’s children,’” this court does “not apply a ‘narrow, technical conception of what constitutes a final order’ under A.R.S. § 8-235(A).” Brionna J., 247 Ariz. at 349 ¶ 8 (quoting J-8545, 140 Ariz. at 14 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2013Rodriguez, 165 Ariz. at 75 , 796 P.2d at 877 . 2013Rodriguez, 165 Ariz. at 75 , 796 P.2d at 877 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Evans v. Pickett
green
2 sentences1983Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967); Reichardt v. Albert, 89 Ariz. 322 , 361 P.2d 934 (1961); Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App. 556 , 521 P.2d 1014 (1974). 1983Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967); Reichardt v. Albert, 89 Ariz. 322 , 361 P.2d 934 (1961); Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App. 556 , 521 P.2d 1014 (1974). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Townsend v. Whatton
green
2 sentences1983Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967); Reichardt v. Albert, 89 Ariz. 322 , 361 P.2d 934 (1961); Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App. 556 , 521 P.2d 1014 (1974). 1983Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967); Reichardt v. Albert, 89 Ariz. 322 , 361 P.2d 934 (1961); Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App. 556 , 521 P.2d 1014 (1974). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Reichardt v. Albert
green
2 sentences1983Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967); Reichardt v. Albert, 89 Ariz. 322 , 361 P.2d 934 (1961); Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App. 556 , 521 P.2d 1014 (1974). 1983Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967); Reichardt v. Albert, 89 Ariz. 322 , 361 P.2d 934 (1961); Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App. 556 , 521 P.2d 1014 (1974). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.