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 1 courts 1932–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Obergefell v. Hodgesgreen2 sentences2019Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2607 (2015). ¶6 Although this case is about freedom of speech and religion, it suits the preferred analysis of our dissenting colleagues to reframe it as one involving discriminatory conduct based on a customer’s sexual orientation. 2019Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2607 (2015). ¶6 Although this case is about freedom of speech and religion, it suits the preferred analysis of our dissenting colleagues to reframe it as one involving discriminatory conduct based on a customer’s sexual orientation. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Winkle v. City of Tucson
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Delony v. Rucker
green
2 sentences1989"A city's first duty is to its own inhabitants who ordinarily pay for the municipal plant directly or indirectly, and who therefore have a preferred claim to the benefits resulting from public ownership." Delony v. *41 Rucker, 302 S.W.2d 287 (1957). 1989“A city’s first duty is to its own inhabitants who ordinarily pay for the municipal plant directly or indirectly, and who therefore have a preferred claim to the benefits resulting from public ownership.” Delony v. Rucker, 302 S.W.2d 287 (1957). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Soodhalter v. Reliance Coal Co.
neutral
2 sentences1941An examination of the statutes of Iowa on this point discloses that they are materially different from those in Arizona and the decisions relied on, Reynolds v. Black, 91 Iowa 1 , 58 N. W. 922 , and Soodhalter v. Reliance Goal Co., 203 Iowa 688 , 213 N. W. 213 , were properly decided thereunder. 1941An examination of the statutes of Iowa on this point discloses that they are materially different from those in Arizona and the decisions relied on, Reynolds v. Black, 91 Iowa 1 , 58 N. W. 922 , and Soodhalter v. Reliance Goal Co., 203 Iowa 688 , 213 N. W. 213 , were properly decided thereunder. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Reynolds v. Black
neutral
2 sentences1941An examination of the statutes of Iowa on this point discloses that they are materially different from those in Arizona and the decisions relied on, Reynolds v. Black, 91 Iowa 1 , 58 N. W. 922 , and Soodhalter v. Reliance Goal Co., 203 Iowa 688 , 213 N. W. 213 , were properly decided thereunder. 1941An examination of the statutes of Iowa on this point discloses that they are materially different from those in Arizona and the decisions relied on, Reynolds v. Black, 91 Iowa 1 , 58 N. W. 922 , and Soodhalter v. Reliance Goal Co., 203 Iowa 688 , 213 N. W. 213 , were properly decided thereunder. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Mutual Accident Ass'n of the Northwest v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences1932Mutual Acc. Assn. v. Jacobs, 141 Ill. 261 [ 31 N. E. 414 , 16 L. 1932Mutual Acc. Assn. v. Jacobs, 141 Ill. 261 [ 31 N. E. 414 , 16 L. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.