7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Law v. Superior Court of State of Ariz.green2 sentences2008See id. (“We occasionally allow a decision to have only prospective application, but the matter ‘is a policy question within this court’s discretion.’ ”), quoting Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell, 163 Ariz. 587, 596 , 790 P.2d 242, 251 (1990) (emphasis added); Zavala v. Ariz. State Pers. 2008See id. (“We occasionally allow a decision to have only prospective application, but the matter ‘is a policy question within this court’s discretion.’ ”), quoting Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell, 163 Ariz. 587, 596 , 790 P.2d 242, 251 (1990) (emphasis added); Zavala v. Ariz. State Pers. | 2 | 2 |
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassellgreen2 sentences2008See id. (“We occasionally allow a decision to have only prospective application, but the matter ‘is a policy question within this court’s discretion.’ ”), quoting Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell, 163 Ariz. 587, 596 , 790 P.2d 242, 251 (1990) (emphasis added); Zavala v. Ariz. State Pers. 2008See id. (“We occasionally allow a decision to have only prospective application, but the matter ‘is a policy question within this court’s discretion.’ ”), quoting Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell, 163 Ariz. 587, 596 , 790 P.2d 242, 251 (1990) (emphasis added); Zavala v. Ariz. State Pers. | 2 | 2 |
Empire Volkswagen Inc. v. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.green1 sentence2026See Empire Volkswagen Inc., 814 F.2d at 94 . | 1 | 1 |
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc.green1 sentence2026See Robert Schalkenbach Found., 208 Ariz. at 180, ¶ 17 . ¶10 Turning to Taylor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings relating to Count III, because Pineda did not file a response, it was within the superior court’s discretion to grant the motion solely on that basis. | 1 | 1 |
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences2022Manterola, 200 Ariz. 572 , ¶ 27 & n.5. 2022Manterola, 200 Ariz. 572 , ¶ 27 & n.5. | 1 | 1 |
Indiana v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2019In Indiana v. Edwards, the Court addressed the more complicated question of whether, when a criminal defendant is mentally competent to stand trial but “not mentally competent to conduct that trial himself,” a state may preclude him from self-representation. 554 U.S. 164, 167 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
1 sentence2019Denial of Right to Self-Representation ¶20 Over Taylor’s objection, the trial court found that Taylor could not represent himself due to his “demonstrated . . . inability to comply with any laws and any court orders.” Taylor argues that such an order abridged his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). ¶21 Faretta was not the Supreme Court’s final word on the right to self-representation. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2018Taylor , 175 Ariz. at 154 , 854 P.2d at 1140 . 2018Taylor , 175 Ariz. at 154 , 854 P.2d at 1140 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.