7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 1 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 of Arizona v. Jose Luis Jimenezgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Jimenez, 255 Ariz. 550, ¶ 8 (App. 2023) (“[T]he court need not accept the subjective beliefs of challenged venirepersons 10 STATE v. MORENO Opinion of the Court addressing mandatory disqualification, and our controlling jurisprudence applying that statute, compel a more comprehensive assessment of Juror 11’s suitability to sit in this particular case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kemptongreen2 sentences2003Id. at 395-97 , 803 P.2d at 116-18 (“The starting point of this inquiry is the fourth amendment to the federal constitution.”). 2003Id. at 395-97 , 803 P.2d at 116-18 (“The starting point of this inquiry is the fourth amendment to the federal constitution.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences2000See Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 105 Ariz. 94, 99 , 459 P.2d 719, 724 (1969). 2000See Ebasco Services Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 105 Ariz. 94, 99 , 459 P.2d 719, 724 (1969). | 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 Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris
green
2 sentences2004There, our supreme court stated an agreement between an insured (who is defended under a reservation of rights) and an injured third-party claimant renders an insurer liable only “to the extent that the [insured, or claimant as assignee] establishes that the settlement was reasonable and prudent under all the circumstances.” 154 Ariz. at 120, 741 P.2d at 253 . 2004There, our supreme court stated an agreement between an insured (who is defended under a reservation of rights) and an injured third-party claimant renders an insurer liable only “to the extent that the [insured, or claimant as assignee] establishes that the settlement was reasonable and prudent under all the circumstances.” 154 Ariz. at 120, 741 P.2d at 253 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission
green
2 sentences2008That case involved the regulation of “Scoop-Lines”: pay-per-call telephone numbers that provided customers with messages on a variety of topics, such as sports and weather. 160 Ariz. at 352 , 773 P.2d at 457 . 2008That case involved the regulation of “Scoop-Lines”: pay-per-call telephone numbers that provided customers with messages on a variety of topics, such as sports and weather. 160 Ariz. at 352 , 773 P.2d at 457 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences1990Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). 1990Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.