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 1989–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Steigergreen2 sentences2014“Although due process requires notice which provides a fair and definite warning, it neither requires absolute precision nor impossible standards.” State v. Steiger, 162 Ariz. 138, 141-42 , 781 P.2d 616, 619-20 (App. 1989) (citations omitted). ¶8 Wiggins does not contend the meaning of the term “financial harm” is not capable of being understood, only that it does not provide a standard for what amount of financial harm constitutes an aggravating circumstance. 2014“Although due process requires notice which provides a fair and definite warning, it neither requires absolute precision nor impossible standards.” State v. Steiger, 162 Ariz. 138, 141-42 , 781 P.2d 616, 619-20 (App. 1989) (citations omitted). ¶8 Wiggins does not contend the meaning of the term “financial harm” is not capable of being understood, only that it does not provide a standard for what amount of financial harm constitutes an aggravating circumstance. | 1 | 2 |
Grayned v. City of Rockfordgreen2 sentences2004State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385 , 390 ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 1021, 1026 (App.1998); see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 ; Mutschler, 204 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 472 . ¶ 14 We conclude that the use of the word “luggage” does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. 2004State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385 , 390 ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 1021, 1026 (App.1998); see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 ; Mutschler, 204 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 472 . ¶ 14 We conclude that the use of the word “luggage” does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 2 |
Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPAgreen2 sentences1994Fuenning v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 590, 598 , 680 P.2d 121 , 129 (1983); State *371 v. Averyt, 160 Ariz.Adv.Rep. 17, 18, 1994 WL 67109 (App. March 8, 1994). 1994Fuenning v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 590, 598 , 680 P.2d 121 , 129 (1983); State *371 v. Averyt, 160 Ariz.Adv.Rep. 17, 18, 1994 WL 67109 (App. March 8, 1994). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kaisergreen2 sentences2004State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385 , 390 ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 1021, 1026 (App.1998); see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 ; Mutschler, 204 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 472 . ¶ 14 We conclude that the use of the word “luggage” does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. 2004State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385 , 390 ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 1021, 1026 (App.1998); see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 ; Mutschler, 204 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 472 . ¶ 14 We conclude that the use of the word “luggage” does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lefevregreen2 sentences2004State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385 , 390 ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 1021, 1026 (App.1998); see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 ; Mutschler, 204 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 472 . ¶ 14 We conclude that the use of the word “luggage” does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. 2004State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385 , 390 ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 1021, 1026 (App.1998); see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 ; Mutschler, 204 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 472 . ¶ 14 We conclude that the use of the word “luggage” does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colegreen2 sentences1997“As has been aptly stated, ‘condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.’ ” State v. Cole, 18 Ariz.App. 237, 238 , 501 P.2d 413, 414 (1972) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2300 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)). 1997“As has been aptly stated, ‘condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.’ ” State v. Cole, 18 Ariz.App. 237, 238 , 501 P.2d 413, 414 (1972) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2300 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)). | 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. Mutschler
green
2 sentences2004State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385 , 390 ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 1021, 1026 (App.1998); see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 ; Mutschler, 204 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 472 . ¶ 14 We conclude that the use of the word “luggage” does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. 2004State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385 , 390 ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 1021, 1026 (App.1998); see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 ; Mutschler, 204 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 472 . ¶ 14 We conclude that the use of the word “luggage” does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences1997However, “[t]he due process requirement of a fair and definite warning does not mandate perfect notice or absolute precision.” Phillips, 178 Ariz. at 370 , 873 P.2d at 708 . 1997However, “[t]he due process requirement of a fair and definite warning does not mandate perfect notice or absolute precision.” Phillips, 178 Ariz. at 370 , 873 P.2d at 708 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |