7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Millergreen2 sentences2017Simpson, 240 Ariz. at 211 ¶ 13, 377 P.3d at 1006 (“Salerno did not even suggest that fewer than all of the safeguards in the Bail Reform Act might be allowable.”). 2017Simpson, 240 Ariz. at 211 ¶ 13, 377 P.3d at 1006 (“Salerno did not even suggest that fewer than all of the safeguards in the Bail Reform Act might be allowable.”). | 2 | 2 |
Simpson v. Miller ex rel. County of Maricopagreen2 sentences2018Id. at 748, 107 S.Ct. 2095 ; cf. Simpson II , 241 Ariz. at 347 ¶ 20, 387 P.3d at 1276 (applying the Salerno standard). ¶ 13 The Salerno Court next used a two-step "heightened scrutiny" standard to determine whether the Bail Reform Act, although regulatory, nevertheless violated the due-process restriction on pretrial detention. 2018Id ., at 348-49 ¶¶ 26-27, 30-31, 387 P.3d at 1277 -78 . ¶ 54 Additionally, Simpson II set aside Salerno's standard for facial challenges and adopted Lopez-Valenzuela's overbreadth standard. | 1 | 2 |
Foucha v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2016See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 81-82 , 112 S.Ct. 1780 , 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992) (holding that “[u]nlike the sharply focused scheme at issue in Salerno ... [the state statute at issue wa]s not carefully limited” because it placed no burden on the government to prove that an insanity acquittee who was no longer mentally ill should nonetheless continue to be indefinitely detained in order to protect the community). ¶ 14 A.R.S. § 13-3961(D) (and subsection (G), which gives the court discretion to presume that a defendant is unmanageably dangerous if he or she is a criminal street gang member 2016See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 81-82 , 112 S.Ct. 1780 , 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992) (holding that “[u]nlike the sharply focused scheme at issue in Salerno ... [the state statute at issue wa]s not carefully limited” because it placed no burden on the government to prove that an insanity acquittee who was no longer mentally ill should nonetheless continue to be indefinitely detained in order to protect the community). ¶ 14 A.R.S. § 13-3961(D) (and subsection (G), which gives the court discretion to presume that a defendant is unmanageably dangerous if he or she is a criminal street gang member | 1 | 1 |
Aime v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2004See Brill, 965 P.2d at 407-08; Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667 , 611 N.E.2d 204, 214 (1993); Witt v. Moran, 572 A.2d 261, 267 (R.I.1990). 2004See Brill, 965 P.2d at 407-08; Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667 , 611 N.E.2d 204, 214 (1993); Witt v. Moran, 572 A.2d 261, 267 (R.I.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Witt v. Morangreen2 sentences2004See Brill, 965 P.2d at 407-08; Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667 , 611 N.E.2d 204, 214 (1993); Witt v. Moran, 572 A.2d 261, 267 (R.I.1990). 2004See Brill, 965 P.2d at 407-08; Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667 , 611 N.E.2d 204, 214 (1993); Witt v. Moran, 572 A.2d 261, 267 (R.I.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Cohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizonagreen2 sentences2000See Cohn v. Industrial Comm’n, 178 Ariz. 395, 398 , 874 P.2d 315, 318 (1994)(issues not presented to the trial court are generally not considered on appeal). 2000See Cohn v. Industrial Comm’n, 178 Ariz. 395, 398 , 874 P.2d 315, 318 (1994)(issues not presented to the trial court are generally not considered on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Salerno
green
2 sentences2018Id . at 2450-51. ¶ 56 Applying the Salerno standard, Patel stated that a party seeking facial relief must show "that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid." Id . at 2450. (quoting Salerno , 481 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 ). 2018Id . at 2450-51. ¶ 56 Applying the Salerno standard, Patel stated that a party seeking facial relief must show "that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid." Id . at 2450. (quoting Salerno , 481 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 ). | 4 | 2017–2018 |
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.