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 2013–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Liteky v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020See Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. at 67, ¶ 17 ; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994) (“[J]udicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.”). 2019State v. Curry, 187 Ariz. 623, 631 (App. 1996). ¶10 By the same token, "judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge[,] [but] . . . they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). | 4 | 5 |
In Re Guardianship of Styergreen1 sentence2024“Thus, judicial remarks . . . that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” Id.; see also In re Guardianship of Styer, 24 Ariz. App. 148, 151 (1975) (“The fact that a judge may have an opinion as to the 9 merits of the cause or a strong feeling about the type of litigation involved, does not make the judge biased or prejudiced.”). ¶33 Alvarez did not establish, and the record does not show, that the judge exhibited bias or prejudice at sentencing. | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Lisa M. Aubuchongreen1 sentence2020See Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. at 67, ¶ 17 ; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994) (“[J]udicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Currygreen1 sentence2019State v. Curry, 187 Ariz. 623, 631 (App. 1996). ¶10 By the same token, "judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge[,] [but] . . . they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Belue v. Leventhalgreen1 sentence2013And although the panel’s subsequent opinion sharply criticizes Aubuehon, it does not reflect “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id.; see also id. at 555-56, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (“[Expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within *67 the bounds of what imperfect men and women, even ... judges, sometimes display” do not establish bias or partiality); Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir.2011) (“But to argue that judges must desist from forming strong views about a case is to blink [from] the reality that j | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.