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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
O'DONNELL v. Mavesgreen1 sentence2020Likewise, in O’Donnell v. Maves, 108 Ariz. 98, 99 (1972), the supreme court upheld the denial of a directed verdict on an A.R.S. § 28-952 violation, explaining a directed verdict is only warranted when the defendant admits the violation and “fails to offer any legal excuse” for the negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Perry County v. Kentucky River Coal Corporationgreen1 sentence1997Id. at 691. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
green
2 sentences2006But it concluded that “the legislature may designate conduct as creating a waiver of rights against the employer as a matter of law, regardless of the claimant’s intent or even if a contrary intent is expressed.” Anderson, 147 Ariz. at 461 , 711 P.2d at 600 . ¶ 30 We find that logic applicable to this case, in which neither UAPD nor TPD posted the notice required by § 23-1022(E). 2006But it concluded that “the legislature may designate conduct as creating a waiver of rights against the employer as a matter of law, regardless of the claimant’s intent or even if a contrary intent is expressed.” Anderson, 147 Ariz. at 461 , 711 P.2d at 600 . ¶ 30 We find that logic applicable to this case, in which neither UAPD nor TPD posted the notice required by § 23-1022(E). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Mealey v. Arndt
green
1 sentence2024Thus, this Court clearly acknowledged the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence and treated it as distinct from adverse possession. ¶16 More recently, the court of appeals cited Hein in Mealey, and explicitly stated that Arizona “has acknowledged the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence.” 206 Ariz. at 221 ¶ 13. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Estate of Sims
green
2 sentences2007The court acknowledged the principle set forth in In re Sims’ Estate, 13 Ariz.App. 215 , 475 P.2d 505 (1970), that spouses may convey separate and community property interests between them but only if done by a written instrument accompanied by contemporaneous conduct indicating an intent to convey such interests. 2007The court acknowledged the principle set forth in In re Sims’ Estate, 13 Ariz.App. 215 , 475 P.2d 505 (1970), that spouses may convey separate and community property interests between them but only if done by a written instrument accompanied by contemporaneous conduct indicating an intent to convey such interests. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bender v. Bender
green
2 sentences2007Bender, 123 Ariz. at 93 , 597 P.2d at 996 . 2007Bender, 123 Ariz. at 93 , 597 P.2d at 996 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.