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 1 courts 2013–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorfgreen2 sentences2021State v. Glissendorf, 235 Ariz. 147, 150, ¶ 7 (2014). ¶26 Willits authorizes the trial court to provide an adverse- inference jury instruction “when the state loses or destroys evidence that would have been useful to the defense, even if that destruction is innocent.” Id. 2021State v. Glissendorf, 235 Ariz. 147, 150, ¶ 7 (2014). ¶26 Willits authorizes the trial court to provide an adverse- inference jury instruction “when the state loses or destroys evidence that would have been useful to the defense, even if that destruction is innocent.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc.green1 sentence2021See McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., 231 Ariz. 244, 260, ¶ 51 (App. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Willits
green
2 sentences2024He raised claims that the indictment was defective, he received an illegal sentence, the superior court improperly admitted other act evidence, the State withheld exculpatory evidence, the court should have given an adverse-inference jury instruction according to State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 (1964), and his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance. ¶4 The superior court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on Beatte’s claim that his attorney provided ineffective assistance “as to the witnesses called at the trial and as to the closing arguments that were made.” The court summarily denied B 2019STARING, Presiding Judge: *35 ¶1 In this appeal from Pablo Isaac Hernandez's conviction for unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, we conclude the trial court erred by not giving an adverse-inference jury instruction based on State v. Willits , 96 Ariz. 184 , 191, 393 P.2d 274 (1964). 1 We thus reverse Hernandez's conviction and remand for a new trial. | 3 | 2019–2024 |
Smyser v. City of Peoria
green
1 sentence2021Decision of the Court “prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights, and prejudice affirmatively appears in the record.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). ¶16 The adverse inference jury instruction correctly stated the law and the evidence at trial supported giving the instruction. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Relying on Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc., 214 Ariz. 435 , 153 P.3d 1064 (App.2007), the court granted summary judgment to the Hotel on McMurtry’s dram shop liability claim, finding the Hotel had discharged any duty it owed to Lucario by escorting her safely back to her room. 2013Relying on Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc., 214 Ariz. 435 , 153 P.3d 1064 (App.2007), the court granted summary judgment to the Hotel on McMurtry’s dram shop liability claim, finding the Hotel had discharged any duty it owed to Lucario by escorting her safely back to her room. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.