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 1972–1996 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 v. Keeleygreen2 sentences1996Fourth, were the comments “deliberately or accidently placed before the jury?” Id.; see also Keeley, 178 Ariz. at 236 , 871 P.2d at 1172 (to find a deliberate error harmless “would just encourage similar constitutional error in the future”); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (appellate courts are reluctant to find error harmless “when it appears that the error was deliberate and willful”). 1996Fourth, were the comments “deliberately or accidently placed before the jury?” Id.; see also Keeley, 178 Ariz. at 236 , 871 P.2d at 1172 (to find a deliberate error harmless “would just encourage similar constitutional error in the future”); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (appellate courts are reluctant to find error harmless “when it appears that the error was deliberate and willful”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sorrellgreen2 sentences1996Fourth, were the comments “deliberately or accidently placed before the jury?” Id.; see also Keeley, 178 Ariz. at 236 , 871 P.2d at 1172 (to find a deliberate error harmless “would just encourage similar constitutional error in the future”); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (appellate courts are reluctant to find error harmless “when it appears that the error was deliberate and willful”). 1996Fourth, were the comments “deliberately or accidently placed before the jury?” Id.; see also Keeley, 178 Ariz. at 236 , 871 P.2d at 1172 (to find a deliberate error harmless “would just encourage similar constitutional error in the future”); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (appellate courts are reluctant to find error harmless “when it appears that the error was deliberate and willful”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Valley National Bank of Arizona
green
1 sentence1995In Chambers v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Arizona, 721 F.Supp. 1128 (D.Ariz.1988), the employee claimed that the bank could only *355 terminate her for cause because its personnel policy manual and handbook created an implied-in-fact employment contract. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Michigan v. Tucker
green
1 sentence1995As Justice Moeller said in Bravo : Id. at 373 , 762 P.2d at 1327 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Bravo
green
1 sentence1995As Justice Moeller said in Bravo : Id. at 373 , 762 P.2d at 1327 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Namekagon Development Co. v. Bois Forte Reservation Housing Authority
green
2 sentences1988In the Namekagon case, the ordinance contained an express waiver, providing that the housing authority could "sue and be sued in its corporate name, upon any contract, claim or obligation arising out of its activities under this ordinance." 395 F. Supp. at 27 . 1988In the Namekagon case, the ordinance contained an express waiver, providing that the housing authority could “sue and be sued in its corporate name, upon any contract, claim or obligation arising out of its activities under this ordinance.” 395 F.Supp. at 27 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Employment Security Commission v. Myers
green
2 sentences1980The court defined misconduct as “an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee.” Id. 17 Ariz. App. at 89 , 495 P.2d at 859 , citing 48 Am. 1980The court defined misconduct as “an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee.” Id. 17 Ariz. App. at 89 , 495 P.2d at 859 , citing 48 Am. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck
green
2 sentences1972For the week in which he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work, if so found by the commission, and in addition to the wait-ting week, for the six weeks which immediately follow such week, and his maximum benefit amount shall be reduced by an amount equivalent to six times his weekly benefit amount.” TMisconduct is not defined by the statute. -48 Am.Jur. at 541 defines: “Misconduct Precluding Payment of Unemployment Insurance as an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavi 1972For the week in which he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work, if so found by the commission, and in addition to the wait-ting week, for the six weeks which immediately follow such week, and his maximum benefit amount shall be reduced by an amount equivalent to six times his weekly benefit amount.” TMisconduct is not defined by the statute. -48 Am.Jur. at 541 defines: “Misconduct Precluding Payment of Unemployment Insurance as an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavi | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.