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 2008–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Athena Venture Partners, L.P.green1 sentence2018See Goldman Sachs v. Athena , 803 F.3d 144 , 147-48 (3d Cir. 2015) (adopting the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Fidelity and noting conformity with the First, Second, and Eighth Circuits); Nordic PCL Constr. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nissleygreen2 sentences2017Nissley, 238 Ariz. at 454 ¶ 31, 362 P.3d at 501 ; see also id. at 457 ¶ 41, 362 P.3d at 504 (Jones, J., dissenting). ¶ 17 Nissley and Amicus argue that the trial and appellate courts mistakenly placed the burden on him to show that he expressly and unambiguously rejected medical treat ment. 2017Nissley, 238 Ariz. at 454 ¶ 31, 362 P.3d at 501 ; see also id. at 457 ¶ 41, 362 P.3d at 504 (Jones, J., dissenting). ¶ 17 Nissley and Amicus argue that the trial and appellate courts mistakenly placed the burden on him to show that he expressly and unambiguously rejected medical treat ment. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Roden v. Rodengreen1 sentence2017Schickner, 237 Ariz. at 197 , ¶ 13 (citing Roden v. Roden, 190 Ariz. 407, 411 (App. 1997), superseded in part by statute on other grounds as recognized in Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 8 (App. 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
Myrick v. Maloneygreen1 sentence2017Schickner, 237 Ariz. at 197 , ¶ 13 (citing Roden v. Roden, 190 Ariz. 407, 411 (App. 1997), superseded in part by statute on other grounds as recognized in Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 8 (App. 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2015State v. Morales, 215 Ariz. 59 , 61 ¶ 9, 157 P.3d 479, 481 (2007). ¶8 The superior court is required to conduct a colloquy when accepting a defendant’s stipulation or admission to a prior conviction to ensure the admission is made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. 2015State v. Morales, 215 Ariz. 59 , 61 ¶ 9, 157 P.3d 479, 481 (2007). ¶8 The superior court is required to conduct a colloquy when accepting a defendant’s stipulation or admission to a prior conviction to ensure the admission is made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. | 1 | 1 |
Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcuttgreen1 sentence2015Sourcecorp, 229 Ariz. at 273, ¶¶ 8-12 ; see also Lamb Excavation, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.green2 sentences2008See, e.g., Anderson, 53 Cal.3d at 999 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 528 , 810 P.2d at 557 (holding that “knowledge, actual or constructive, is a requisite for strict liability for failure to warn.”); Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton, 845 P.2d 1168, 1172 (Colo.1993) (“We agree with the petitioners that state-of-the-art evidence is properly admissible to establish that a product is not defective and unreasonably dangerous because of a failure-to-warn. 2008See, e.g., Anderson, 53 Cal.3d at 999 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 528 , 810 P.2d at 557 (holding that “knowledge, actual or constructive, is a requisite for strict liability for failure to warn.”); Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton, 845 P.2d 1168, 1172 (Colo.1993) (“We agree with the petitioners that state-of-the-art evidence is properly admissible to establish that a product is not defective and unreasonably dangerous because of a failure-to-warn. | 1 | 1 |
Fibreboard Corp. v. Fentongreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Anderson, 53 Cal.3d at 999 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 528 , 810 P.2d at 557 (holding that “knowledge, actual or constructive, is a requisite for strict liability for failure to warn.”); Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton, 845 P.2d 1168, 1172 (Colo.1993) (“We agree with the petitioners that state-of-the-art evidence is properly admissible to establish that a product is not defective and unreasonably dangerous because of a failure-to-warn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schickner v. Schickner
green
1 sentence2017Schickner, 237 Ariz. at 197 , ¶ 13 (citing Roden v. Roden, 190 Ariz. 407, 411 (App. 1997), superseded in part by statute on other grounds as recognized in Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 8 (App. 2014)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.