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 1971–2017 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. Nunezgreen2 sentences1985See State v. Nunez, 135 Ariz. 257 , 660 P.2d 858 (1983). 1985See State v. Nunez, 135 Ariz. 257 , 660 P.2d 858 (1983). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences1984See State v. Lee, 142 Ariz. 210, 214 , 689 P.2d 153, 157 (1984) (adopting the test for prejudice set out in Strickland v. Washington, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). 1984See State v. Lee, 142 Ariz. 210, 214 , 689 P.2d 153, 157 (1984) (adopting the test for prejudice set out in Strickland v. Washington, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1984See State v. Lee, 142 Ariz. 210, 214 , 689 P.2d 153, 157 (1984) (adopting the test for prejudice set out in Strickland v. Washington, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). 1984See State v. Lee, 142 Ariz. 210, 214 , 689 P.2d 153, 157 (1984) (adopting the test for prejudice set out in Strickland v. Washington, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences1979In regard to the issue of estoppel, the rule is established in Arizona that: “before the mechanics lien claimant can defeat the legal priority of a prior recorded mortgage, he must show that the mortgagee did something upon which he had a right to rely, and that he relied thereon to his detriment.” Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass’n, 102 Ariz. 258, 265 , 428 P.2d 115, 122 (1967). *577 This court in Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac, 1 CA-CIV 3810, memorandum decision, filed August 17, 1978, was presented with basically the same contention by Watson’s claim that it was 1979In regard to the issue of estoppel, the rule is established in Arizona that: “before the mechanics lien claimant can defeat the legal priority of a prior recorded mortgage, he must show that the mortgagee did something upon which he had a right to rely, and that he relied thereon to his detriment.” Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass’n, 102 Ariz. 258, 265 , 428 P.2d 115, 122 (1967). *577 This court in Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac, 1 CA-CIV 3810, memorandum decision, filed August 17, 1978, was presented with basically the same contention by Watson’s claim that it was | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2017Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Leon
green
1 sentence2017Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lindus v. Northern Insurance Company of New York
green
2 sentences1971In Lindus v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York, 103 Ariz. 160 , 438 P.2d 311 (1968), the Arizona Supreme Court extended the Watson rule, so that now it covers situations involving policies with specific penalty provisions. 1971In Lindus v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York, 103 Ariz. 160 , 438 P.2d 311 (1968), the Arizona Supreme Court extended the Watson rule, so that now it covers situations involving policies with specific penalty provisions. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.