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 1983–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Guardianship of Mikrutgreen1 sentence2021See id. ¶18 To begin, the superior court did not rely on any Mikrut presumption. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Guardianship and Conservatorship Of: Robert Sommergreen1 sentence2021See In re Guardianship of Sommer, 241 Ariz. 308, 311, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (“[T]he legislature did not intend to disallow an immediate appeal from an order establishing a conservatorship or guardianship and appointing a guardian or conservator.”). | 1 | 1 |
Arizona Dept. of Public Safety v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2014Comm’n, 170 Ariz. 275, 277 , 823 P.2d 1283, 1285 (App.1991) (“A failure to reply to arguments raised in an answering brief may justify a summary disposition of an appeal.”). ¶4 In any event, we would find no basis for relief on the merits of Cota’s claim. 2014Comm’n, 170 Ariz. 275, 277 , 823 P.2d 1283, 1285 (App.1991) (“A failure to reply to arguments raised in an answering brief may justify a summary disposition of an appeal.”). ¶4 In any event, we would find no basis for relief on the merits of Cota’s claim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cotagreen2 sentences2014Unlike the defendant in State v. Cota, on which Naranjo relies, the State was left with no fair opportunity to refute Dr. Wu’s conclusions. 229 Ariz. 136 ,149 ¶ 60, 272 P.3d 1027, 1040 (2012) (holding that the trial court properly denied Cota’s motion to preclude because “he had access to all relevant information” before cross-examining the witness). 2014Unlike the defendant in State v. Cota, on which Naranjo relies, the State was left with no fair opportunity to refute Dr. Wu’s conclusions. 229 Ariz. 136 ,149 ¶ 60, 272 P.3d 1027, 1040 (2012) (holding that the trial court properly denied Cota’s motion to preclude because “he had access to all relevant information” before cross-examining the witness). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2012State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1 , 16 ¶ 66, 226 P.3d 370, 385 (2010); State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 12 , 951 P.2d 869, 877 (1997). 2012State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1 , 16 ¶ 66, 226 P.3d 370, 385 (2010); State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 12 , 951 P.2d 869, 877 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tuckergreen2 sentences2012The court denied Cota’s motion for mistrial and offered a curative instruction, which Cota declined. ¶ 70 A mistrial is required when victim impact testimony is so “unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair.” State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298 , 320 ¶ 92, 160 P.3d 177, 199 (2007). 2012The court denied Cota’s motion for mistrial and offered a curative instruction, which Cota declined. ¶ 70 A mistrial is required when victim impact testimony is so “unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair.” State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298 , 320 ¶ 92, 160 P.3d 177, 199 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trostlegreen2 sentences2012State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1 , 16 ¶ 66, 226 P.3d 370, 385 (2010); State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 12 , 951 P.2d 869, 877 (1997). 2012State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1 , 16 ¶ 66, 226 P.3d 370, 385 (2010); State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 12 , 951 P.2d 869, 877 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McDanielred2 sentences1983In addition to the views expressed in State v. Caldwell, supra, we have recently retreated from the Cota rule “insofar as [it suggests] an absolute right to call witnesses regardless of the fact that they may properly choose to invoke their fifth amendment privilege in response to all relevant questions.” State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 194 , 665 P.2d 70, 76 (1983) (emphasis in original) (defendant is not denied his sixth amendment right to compulsory process when he is precluded from calling a witness who intends to invoke the fifth amendment and who can legitimately refuse to answer questi 1983In addition to the views expressed in State v. Caldwell, supra, we have recently retreated from the Cota rule “insofar as [it suggests] an absolute right to call witnesses regardless of the fact that they may properly choose to invoke their fifth amendment privilege in response to all relevant questions.” State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 194 , 665 P.2d 70, 76 (1983) (emphasis in original) (defendant is not denied his sixth amendment right to compulsory process when he is precluded from calling a witness who intends to invoke the fifth amendment and who can legitimately refuse to answer questi | 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. Karr
green
1 sentence2020State v. Karr, 221 Ariz. 319 , 320 ¶ 2 (App. 2008). 2 renewed motion to continue over Cota’s objection, resetting trial for later that month. ¶5 The second grand jury presentment then resulted in a new indictment, charging Cota with different offenses against the victim named in the original indictment. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.
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.