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 1950–2009 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. Velascogreen2 sentences2009State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480, 486-87 , 799 P.2d 821, 827-28 (1990) (no requirement scientific process underlying alcohol testing be “absolutely perfect" as long as reasonably reliable); see also Mack, 196 Ariz. 541, ¶ 12 , 2 P.3d at 104. 2009State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480, 486-87 , 799 P.2d 821, 827-28 (1990) (no requirement scientific process underlying alcohol testing be “absolutely perfect" as long as reasonably reliable); see also Mack, 196 Ariz. 541, ¶ 12 , 2 P.3d at 104. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Schantzgreen2 sentences1969See State v. Schantz, supra. [ 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 ] It is for this reason that the function of the jury becomes of even greater importance in cases where insanity is raised as a defense. 1969See State v. Schantz, supra. [ 98 Ariz. 200 , 403 P.2d 521 ] It is for this reason that the function of the jury becomes of even greater importance in cases where insanity is raised as a defense. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Canogreen2 sentences1976The court, in rejecting this contention, quoted from State v. Cano, 103 Ariz. 37 , 436 P.2d 586 (1968): “ * * * Expert-opinion testimony is merely evidence to be considered by the jury, together with all the facts and circumstances in the case. * * * The law has not yet been able to develop a perfect standard by which legal responsibility for crime is to be determined. 1976The court, in rejecting this contention, quoted from State v. Cano, 103 Ariz. 37 , 436 P.2d 586 (1968): “ * * * Expert-opinion testimony is merely evidence to be considered by the jury, together with all the facts and circumstances in the case. * * * The law has not yet been able to develop a perfect standard by which legal responsibility for crime is to be determined. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Canogreen2 sentences2009State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480, 486-87 , 799 P.2d 821, 827-28 (1990) (no requirement scientific process 9 App. 1977 ); see also State v. Cano, 154 Ariz. 447, 449-50 , 743 P.2d 956, 958-59 (App. 1987) (trial court properly denied request to examine officer’s personnel file based on conjecture it might contain evidence of past dishonesty). 2009State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480, 486-87 , 799 P.2d 821, 827-28 (1990) (no requirement scientific process 9 App. 1977 ); see also State v. Cano, 154 Ariz. 447, 449-50 , 743 P.2d 956, 958-59 (App. 1987) (trial court properly denied request to examine officer’s personnel file based on conjecture it might contain evidence of past dishonesty). | 1 | 1 |
MacK v. Cruikshankgreen2 sentences2009State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480, 486-87 , 799 P.2d 821, 827-28 (1990) (no requirement scientific process underlying alcohol testing be “absolutely perfect" as long as reasonably reliable); see also Mack, 196 Ariz. 541, ¶ 12 , 2 P.3d at 104. 2009State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480, 486-87 , 799 P.2d 821, 827-28 (1990) (no requirement scientific process underlying alcohol testing be “absolutely perfect" as long as reasonably reliable); see also Mack, 196 Ariz. 541, ¶ 12 , 2 P.3d at 104. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crosegreen2 sentences1970See State v. Schantz, supra. It is for this reason that the function of the jury becomes of even greater importance in cases where insanity is raised as a defense. * * * ” *500 We held, in State v. Crose, 88 Ariz. 389 , 357 P.2d 136 : “Whenever the mental condition of a defendant is in issue, two basic questions are presented. 1970See State v. Schantz, supra. It is for this reason that the function of the jury becomes of even greater importance in cases where insanity is raised as a defense. * * * ” *500 We held, in State v. Crose, 88 Ariz. 389 , 357 P.2d 136 : “Whenever the mental condition of a defendant is in issue, two basic questions are presented. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Volker-Scowcroft Lumber Co. v. Vance
green
2 sentences1950There are some authorities that support this contention but the great weight of authority is to the contrary and certainly is based upon the sounder reasoning. 36 Am.Jur., page *40 172, Par. 283; Volker-Scowcroft Lumber Co. et al. v. Vance et al., 36 Utah 348 , 103 P. 970 , 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 321, Ann.Cas.l912A, 124. 1950There are some authorities that support this contention but the great weight of authority is to the contrary and certainly is based upon the sounder reasoning. 36 Am.Jur., page *40 172, Par. 283; Volker-Scowcroft Lumber Co. et al. v. Vance et al., 36 Utah 348 , 103 P. 970 , 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 321, Ann.Cas.l912A, 124. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Town of Holbrook v. Girand
green
2 sentences1950The court said in that case:' “ * * * It is urged that it has always been the rule in Arizona that amendments should be allowed liberally in the interest of- justice, so that cases should ultimately tried on their merits and not on technical questions of procedure. be “The general rule of law is unquestionably as stated by plaintiff. * * * It is evident from this testimony that to permit the amendment would necessarily have completely altered the entire theory of the case, would have required a reformation of a written contract, and have destroyed a perfect defense going to the validity of the 1950The court said in that case:' “ * * * It is urged that it has always been the rule in Arizona that amendments should be allowed liberally in the interest of- justice, so that cases should ultimately tried on their merits and not on technical questions of procedure. be “The general rule of law is unquestionably as stated by plaintiff. * * * It is evident from this testimony that to permit the amendment would necessarily have completely altered the entire theory of the case, would have required a reformation of a written contract, and have destroyed a perfect defense going to the validity of the | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.