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 1999–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of L. A. v. Patelgreen1 sentence2018While it is not impossible, making a successful facial challenge is extremely difficult; indeed, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Salerno , 481 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 (emphasis added); see also Patel , 135 S.Ct. at 2447, 2451 (concluding that because there were no relevant circumstances under which the subject municipal code was valid, it was facially invalid). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Sokolowgreen1 sentence2015“While ‘reasonable suspicion’ is a less demanding standard than probable cause, and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop.” Id. (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Bird v. Rothmangreen2 sentences1999See also Bird v. Rothman, 128 Ariz. 599 , 627 P.2d 1097 (App.1981) (simple negligence an improper standard upon which to base liability of an attorney to an adverse party). 1999See also Bird v. Rothman, 128 Ariz. 599 , 627 P.2d 1097 (App.1981) (simple negligence an improper standard upon which to base liability of an attorney to an adverse party). | 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. Estrada
green
2 sentences2019"A result is 'absurd if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.' " State v. Estrada , 201 Ariz. 247 , ¶ 17, 34 P.3d 356 (2001) (quoting Perini Land & Dev. 2019"A result is 'absurd if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.' " State v. Estrada , 201 Ariz. 247 , ¶ 17, 34 P.3d 356 (2001) (quoting Perini Land & Dev. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Salerno
green
2 sentences2018While it is not impossible, making a successful facial challenge is extremely difficult; indeed, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Salerno , 481 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 (emphasis added); see also Patel , 135 S.Ct. at 2447, 2451 (concluding that because there were no relevant circumstances under which the subject municipal code was valid, it was facially invalid). 2018While it is not impossible, making a successful facial challenge is extremely difficult; indeed, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Salerno , 481 U.S. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 (emphasis added); see also Patel , 135 S.Ct. at 2447, 2451 (concluding that because there were no relevant circumstances under which the subject municipal code was valid, it was facially invalid). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wyeth v. Levine
green
2 sentences2016Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 573 , 129 S.Ct. 1187 , 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009). ¶ 56 We heed the Supreme Court’s warning that “[p]re-emption analysis should not be a freewheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives, but an inquiry into whether the ordinary meanings of state and federal law conflict.” Id. at 588 , 129 S.Ct. 1187 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2016Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 573 , 129 S.Ct. 1187 , 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009). ¶ 56 We heed the Supreme Court’s warning that “[p]re-emption analysis should not be a freewheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives, but an inquiry into whether the ordinary meanings of state and federal law conflict.” Id. at 588 , 129 S.Ct. 1187 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2015“While ‘reasonable suspicion’ is a less demanding standard than probable cause, and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop.” Id. (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Texas v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2005In applying that test, courts must employ “careful consideration of the actual circumstances surrounding” the challenged speech, and recognize that not “every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 409 , 109 S.Ct. 2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989). ¶20 The Supreme Court has made plain that very few statements will meet this demanding test. 2005In applying that test, courts must employ “careful consideration of the actual circumstances surrounding” the challenged speech, and recognize that not “every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 409 , 109 S.Ct. 2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989). ¶20 The Supreme Court has made plain that very few statements will meet this demanding test. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.