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 1970–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc.green2 sentences2014Evid. 702 "applies to expert testimony offered in a discharge hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3714”); McMurtry, 231 Ariz. at 251, ¶ 17 , 293 P.3d at 527 (noting testimony of hospitality industry expert admissible under Ariz. R. 2014Evid. 702 "applies to expert testimony offered in a discharge hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3714”); McMurtry, 231 Ariz. at 251, ¶ 17 , 293 P.3d at 527 (noting testimony of hospitality industry expert admissible under Ariz. R. | 1 | 1 |
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C.green2 sentences2013See Stein, 214 Ariz. at 204, ¶ 17 , 150 P.3d at 777 ; Staples, 221 Ariz. at 29, ¶ 9 , 209 P.3d at 165 . 2013See Stein, 214 Ariz. at 204, ¶ 17 , 150 P.3d at 777 ; Staples, 221 Ariz. at 29, ¶ 9 , 209 P.3d at 165 . | 1 | 1 |
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc.green2 sentences2013See Stein, 214 Ariz. at 204, ¶ 17 , 150 P.3d at 777 ; Staples, 221 Ariz. at 29, ¶ 9 , 209 P.3d at 165 . 2013See Stein, 214 Ariz. at 204, ¶ 17 , 150 P.3d at 777 ; Staples, 221 Ariz. at 29, ¶ 9 , 209 P.3d at 165 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Bradway
green
2 sentences2013If, as the Center argues, the legislature intended to preclude the superior court from applying Rule 702 to mental-health testimony offered at a discharge hearing, it would have expressly carved out such an exception to the statutory application of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, but it did not. ¶ 22 The Center argues that § 36-3708(A), which mandates that the annual evaluation by a “competent professional” be submitted to the court, means that the report is admissible in a discharge hearing as a matter of law and that the professional who prepared the report must be allowed to testify. ¶ 23 In 2013If, as the Center argues, the legislature intended to preclude the superior court from applying Rule 702 to mental-health testimony offered at a discharge hearing, it would have expressly carved out such an exception to the statutory application of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, but it did not. ¶ 22 The Center argues that § 36-3708(A), which mandates that the annual evaluation by a “competent professional” be submitted to the court, means that the report is admissible in a discharge hearing as a matter of law and that the professional who prepared the report must be allowed to testify. ¶ 23 In | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Farish v. Young
green
2 sentences1998In Farish , our supreme court indicated that the courts must defer to some extent to the decision to terminate: “Where the word ‘cause’ is not defined by law, it is left in the first instance to the [person with the removal power] to determine what is sufficient cause to justify the removal----” Farish, 18 Ariz. at 303 , 158 P. at 847 . 1998In Farish , our supreme court indicated that the courts must defer to some extent to the decision to terminate: “Where the word ‘cause’ is not defined by law, it is left in the first instance to the [person with the removal power] to determine what is sufficient cause to justify the removal----” Farish, 18 Ariz. at 303 , 158 P. at 847 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
green
2 sentences1987He argues on appeal as follows: 1) the trial court erred in failing to apply the Supreme Court’s holding in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), to the present case; 2) the discharge for his violation of an order of confidentiality violates his first amendment right to freedom of speech; and 3) the trial court erred in failing to set aside the board’s decision and in failing to review the record. 1987He argues on appeal as follows: 1) the trial court erred in failing to apply the Supreme Court’s holding in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), to the present case; 2) the discharge for his violation of an order of confidentiality violates his first amendment right to freedom of speech; and 3) the trial court erred in failing to set aside the board’s decision and in failing to review the record. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 396
green
2 sentences1985In a seminal case involving the public policy exception, Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 396, 174 Cal. App.2d 184 , 344 P.2d 25 (1959), the California Court of Appeals upheld an employee's right to refuse to commit perjury, stating: The public policy of this state as reflected in the Penal Code ... would be seriously impaired if it were to be held that one could be discharged by reason of his refusal to commit perjury. 1985In a seminal case involving the public policy exception, Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 396, 174 Cal. App.2d 184 , 344 P.2d 25 (1959), the California Court of Appeals upheld an employee's right to refuse to commit perjury, stating: The public policy of this state as reflected in the Penal Code ... would be seriously impaired if it were to be held that one could be discharged by reason of his refusal to commit perjury. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Helms v. Holmes
green
2 sentences1970Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 , 82 S.Ct. 807 , 7 L.Ed.2d 641 , (1962); Helms v. Holmes, 129 F.2d 263 , 141 A.L.R. 1367 (4th Cir.1942); National Finance Company v. Valdez, 11 Utah 2d 339 , 359 P.2d 9 (1961). 1970Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 , 82 S.Ct. 807 , 7 L.Ed.2d 641 , (1962); Helms v. Holmes, 129 F.2d 263 , 141 A.L.R. 1367 (4th Cir.1942); National Finance Company v. Valdez, 11 Utah 2d 339 , 359 P.2d 9 (1961). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Kesler v. Department of Public Safety of Utah
red
2 sentences1970Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 , 82 S.Ct. 807 , 7 L.Ed.2d 641 , (1962); Helms v. Holmes, 129 F.2d 263 , 141 A.L.R. 1367 (4th Cir.1942); National Finance Company v. Valdez, 11 Utah 2d 339 , 359 P.2d 9 (1961). 1970Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 , 82 S.Ct. 807 , 7 L.Ed.2d 641 , (1962); Helms v. Holmes, 129 F.2d 263 , 141 A.L.R. 1367 (4th Cir.1942); National Finance Company v. Valdez, 11 Utah 2d 339 , 359 P.2d 9 (1961). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
National Finance Company of Utah v. Valdez
green
2 sentences1970Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 , 82 S.Ct. 807 , 7 L.Ed.2d 641 , (1962); Helms v. Holmes, 129 F.2d 263 , 141 A.L.R. 1367 (4th Cir.1942); National Finance Company v. Valdez, 11 Utah 2d 339 , 359 P.2d 9 (1961). 1970Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 , 82 S.Ct. 807 , 7 L.Ed.2d 641 , (1962); Helms v. Holmes, 129 F.2d 263 , 141 A.L.R. 1367 (4th Cir.1942); National Finance Company v. Valdez, 11 Utah 2d 339 , 359 P.2d 9 (1961). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.