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 2014–2020 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 of Arizona v. Justin James Chasegreen2 sentences2020Moreover, by finding Valentin not guilty of the lesser- included possession offenses and leaving blank the amount-possessed line on the verdict form, the jury essentially filled in the blank for the amount possessed with the number “zero,” and it would be improper to have a new jury revisit that question. ¶12 In sum, Jones II extends AMMA immunity to the statute of conviction, and because the jury resolved all “disputed factual issues” regarding Valentin’s possession of marijuana and cannabis fully in his favor at trial, the “facts are sufficient to establish immunity.” Fields, 232 Ariz. at 26 2015Cnty. of Pima, 232 Ariz. 265 , 269 ¶ 15, 304 P.3d 1088, 1092 (App. 2013). 4 The record shows Cheatham did not meet his burden. | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Laringreen1 sentence2017Cf. State v. Larin, 233 Ariz. 202, 212, ¶ 38 (App. 2013) (explaining the jury did not need to make a specific finding when the finding is “inherent in the crime”). ¶12 During Young’s case-in-chief, Young testified that both her and R.J. had medical marijuana cards and that on three prior occasions she had transferred free marijuana to R.J. | 1 | 1 |
Darrah v. Hon. mcclennen/mesagreen1 sentence2017Darrah v. McClennen (Darrah I), 236 Ariz. 185, 185-86, ¶¶ 1, 4 (App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlockgreen2 sentences2016AR.S. § 36-2811(0). ¶ 5 In addition to immunizing certain individuals against prosecution or punishment in the medical marijuana context, “the electorate ‘required’ [DHS] ‘to adopt and enforce a regulatory system for the distribution of marijuana for medical use.’” State v. Matlock, 237 Ariz. 331 , 336 ¶ 20, 350 P.3d 835, 840 (App.2015) (quoting Proposition 203 ballot pamphlet). 2016AR.S. § 36-2811(0). ¶ 5 In addition to immunizing certain individuals against prosecution or punishment in the medical marijuana context, “the electorate ‘required’ [DHS] ‘to adopt and enforce a regulatory system for the distribution of marijuana for medical use.’” State v. Matlock, 237 Ariz. 331 , 336 ¶ 20, 350 P.3d 835, 840 (App.2015) (quoting Proposition 203 ballot pamphlet). | 1 | 1 |
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/stategreen2 sentences2015See Reedr-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 , 122 ¶¶ 8-9, 347 P.3d 136, 139 (2015) (construing A.R.S. § 36-2811); see also State ex rel. 2015See Reedr-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 , 122 ¶¶ 8-9, 347 P.3d 136, 139 (2015) (construing A.R.S. § 36-2811); see also State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2014Thus, under the express terms of the immunity provision, Reed-Kaliher could not be deprived of the privilege of probation solely based on his medical use of marijuana, and a condition of probation threatening to revoke his privilege for such use cannot be enforced lawfully and is invalid. 1 See State v. Nelson, 346 Mont. 366 , 195 P.3d 826, ¶27 (2008) (concluding Montana’s medical marijuana act, with essentially the same language as Arizona’s, prohibited condition of probation limiting medical marijuana use). ¶ 13 Here, the respondent judge determined that Arizona’s Uniform Conditions of Super 2014Thus, under the express terms of the immunity provision, Reed-Kaliher could not be deprived of the privilege of probation solely based on his medical use of marijuana, and a condition of probation threatening to revoke his privilege for such use cannot be enforced 5 REED-KALIHER v. HOGGATT Opinion of the Court lawfully and is invalid.1 See State v. Nelson, 195 P.3d 826, ¶ 27 (Mont. 2008) (concluding Montana’s medical marijuana act, with essentially the same language as Arizona’s, prohibited condition of probation limiting medical marijuana use). ¶13 Here, the respondent judge determined that A | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.