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 1966–1987 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 |
|---|---|---|
Town of Paradise Valley v. Lindberggreen2 sentences1987See, e.g., Town of Paradise Valley v. Lindberg, 27 Ariz.App. 70 , 551 P.2d 60 (1976)(90-footham radio tower); State v. P.T. & L. 1987See, e.g., Town of Paradise Valley v. Lindberg, 27 Ariz.App. 70 , 551 P.2d 60 (1976)(90-footham radio tower); State v. P.T. & L. | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1985The problem with this analysis is that it flies squarely in the face of the holding in Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 550 , 479 P.2d 685, 693 (1971), that a person is “not entitled to the assistance of counsel in deciding whether or not to submit to the breathalyzer test.” All that was allegedly denied in this case was the right of consultation concerning whether to submit. 1985The problem with this analysis is that it flies squarely in the face of the holding in Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 550 , 479 P.2d 685, 693 (1971), that a person is “not entitled to the assistance of counsel in deciding whether or not to submit to the breathalyzer test.” All that was allegedly denied in this case was the right of consultation concerning whether to submit. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co.green2 sentences1982The concept that the present use to which a condemned premise is being put does not necessarily determine its fair market value is aptly stated in State v. Jay Six Cattle Co., 88 Ariz. 97, 102 , 353 P.2d 185, 188 (1960), quoting from County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe, 83 Ariz. 236 , 319 P.2d 995 (1957): A valuation which does not take into consideration the highest use would not be the fair market value and therefore would not be just compensation. * * * An owner who is making only a minor use of premises cannot be deprived of its value for a major use if that major use goes to a higher market val 1982The concept that the present use to which a condemned premise is being put does not necessarily determine its fair market value is aptly stated in State v. Jay Six Cattle Co., 88 Ariz. 97, 102 , 353 P.2d 185, 188 (1960), quoting from County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe, 83 Ariz. 236 , 319 P.2d 995 (1957): A valuation which does not take into consideration the highest use would not be the fair market value and therefore would not be just compensation. * * * An owner who is making only a minor use of premises cannot be deprived of its value for a major use if that major use goes to a higher market val | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carnley v. Cochran
green
2 sentences1973In Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 , 82 S.Ct. 884, 890 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 , we dealt with a problem of waiver of the right to counsel, a Sixth Amendment right. 1973In Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 , 82 S.Ct. 884, 890 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 , we dealt with a problem of waiver of the right to counsel, a Sixth Amendment right. | 3 | 1969–1973 |
County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe
green
2 sentences1982The concept that the present use to which a condemned premise is being put does not necessarily determine its fair market value is aptly stated in State v. Jay Six Cattle Co., 88 Ariz. 97, 102 , 353 P.2d 185, 188 (1960), quoting from County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe, 83 Ariz. 236 , 319 P.2d 995 (1957): A valuation which does not take into consideration the highest use would not be the fair market value and therefore would not be just compensation. * * * An owner who is making only a minor use of premises cannot be deprived of its value for a major use if that major use goes to a higher market val 1982The concept that the present use to which a condemned premise is being put does not necessarily determine its fair market value is aptly stated in State v. Jay Six Cattle Co., 88 Ariz. 97, 102 , 353 P.2d 185, 188 (1960), quoting from County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe, 83 Ariz. 236 , 319 P.2d 995 (1957): A valuation which does not take into consideration the highest use would not be the fair market value and therefore would not be just compensation. * * * An owner who is making only a minor use of premises cannot be deprived of its value for a major use if that major use goes to a higher market val | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State Ex Rel. Murphy v. Superior Court
neutral
2 sentences1966Previously, this Court in State v. Superior Court, 30 Ariz. 332 , 246 P. 1033 , was presented with the problem of a violation of a court order. 1966Previously, this Court in State v. Superior Court, 30 Ariz. 332 , 246 P. 1033 , was presented with the problem of a violation of a court order. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.