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 1986–2016 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. Bennettgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Bennett, 237 Ariz. 356, 358, ¶ 8 (App. 2015); Brown, 233 Ariz. at 156, ¶ 4 . ¶9 Under A.R.S. § 28-1323(A)(4), the results of a breath test are admissible (without expert witness testimony) if the operator who conducted the test followed an administratively approved operational checklist. 2016See State v. Bennett, 237 Ariz. 356, 358, ¶ 8 (App. 2015); Brown, 233 Ariz. at 156, ¶ 4 . ¶9 Under A.R.S. § 28-1323(A)(4), the results of a breath test are admissible (without expert witness testimony) if the operator who conducted the test followed an administratively approved operational checklist. | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Browngreen2 sentences2016See State v. Bennett, 237 Ariz. 356, 358, ¶ 8 (App. 2015); Brown, 233 Ariz. at 156, ¶ 4 . ¶9 Under A.R.S. § 28-1323(A)(4), the results of a breath test are admissible (without expert witness testimony) if the operator who conducted the test followed an administratively approved operational checklist. 2016See State v. Bennett, 237 Ariz. 356, 358, ¶ 8 (App. 2015); Brown, 233 Ariz. at 156, ¶ 4 . ¶9 Under A.R.S. § 28-1323(A)(4), the results of a breath test are admissible (without expert witness testimony) if the operator who conducted the test followed an administratively approved operational checklist. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fellgreen2 sentences2005We first examine the plain language of the statute and, if it is unclear, then consider other factors such as the statute’s context, history, subject matter, effects and consequences, spirit, and purpose.” State v. Fell, 203 Ariz. 186, ¶ 6 , 52 P.3d 218, 220 (App.2002) (citation omitted). ¶ 6 The provision at issue, former § 28-695(A)(4), requires the state to show the following before the results of a breath test may be admitted into evidence: “The operator who conducted the test followed an operational checklist approved by the department of health services for the operation of the device us 2005We first examine the plain language of the statute and, if it is unclear, then consider other factors such as the statute’s context, history, subject matter, effects and consequences, spirit, and purpose.” State v. Fell, 203 Ariz. 186, ¶ 6 , 52 P.3d 218, 220 (App.2002) (citation omitted). ¶ 6 The provision at issue, former § 28-695(A)(4), requires the state to show the following before the results of a breath test may be admitted into evidence: “The operator who conducted the test followed an operational checklist approved by the department of health services for the operation of the device us | 2 | 2 |
Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPAgreen2 sentences1994Id.; Fuenning v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 590, 604 , 680 P.2d 121, 135 (1983). 1994Id.; Fuenning v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 590, 604 , 680 P.2d 121, 135 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences1995See State v. White, 155 Ariz. 452, 457-58 , 747 P.2d 613, 618-19 (App.1987). *205 [The] 1984 amendment ... reduced the foundational requirements necessary to admit the results of a breath test. 1995See State v. White, 155 Ariz. 452, 457-58 , 747 P.2d 613, 618-19 (App.1987). *205 [The] 1984 amendment ... reduced the foundational requirements necessary to admit the results of a breath test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.