6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Princegreen2 sentences2007Id. at 33, ¶ 67 , 97 P.3d at 858 ; State v. Prince, 206 Ariz. 24, 27, ¶ 10 , 75 P.3d 114, 117 (2003); Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52-53 , 659 P.2d at 11-12 . ¶38 In this ease, as requested by the parties, the jury was instructed on the Mur-daugh factors. 2007Id. at 33, ¶ 67 , 97 P.3d at 858 ; State v. Prince, 206 Ariz. 24, 27, ¶ 10 , 75 P.3d 114, 117 (2003); Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52-53 , 659 P.2d at 11-12 . ¶38 In this ease, as requested by the parties, the jury was instructed on the Mur-daugh factors. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences1995Barreras, 181 Ariz. at 522 , 892 P.2d at 858 ; State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268, 287 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1043 (1994) (“[0]nly under limited circumstances will the senselessness of a murder or helplessness of the victim ... lead to [finding heinousness or depravity].”). 1995Barreras, 181 Ariz. at 522 , 892 P.2d at 858 ; State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268, 287 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1043 (1994) (“[0]nly under limited circumstances will the senselessness of a murder or helplessness of the victim ... lead to [finding heinousness or depravity].”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1995E.g., State v. Smith, 146 Ariz. 491, 503 , 707 P.2d 289, 301 (1985) (noting that senselessness and helplessness alone are not “ordinarily determinative on the question of heinousness or depravity”). 1995E.g., State v. Smith, 146 Ariz. 491, 503 , 707 P.2d 289, 301 (1985) (noting that senselessness and helplessness alone are not “ordinarily determinative on the question of heinousness or depravity”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jordan C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
1 sentence2025The “circumstances” are those “existing at the time of the severance that prevent a parent from being able to appropriately provide for his or her children.” Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at 96 , ¶ 31 n.14 (citation modified). ¶15 Father does not contest the superior court’s findings on the first three factors but contends no reasonable evidence supports finding that he is unable to sufficiently provide appropriate parenting either now or in the near future. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Anthony
green
2 sentences2009Anthony, 218 Ariz. at 444 -45 n. 6 and ¶¶ 34-35, 189 P.3d at 371 -72 n. 6. ¶ 44 Each of the first three factors was met here. 2009Anthony, 218 Ariz. at 444 -45 n. 6 and ¶¶ 34-35, 189 P.3d at 371 -72 n. 6. ¶ 44 Each of the first three factors was met here. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Murdaugh
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 33, ¶ 67 , 97 P.3d at 858 ; State v. Prince, 206 Ariz. 24, 27, ¶ 10 , 75 P.3d 114, 117 (2003); Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52-53 , 659 P.2d at 11-12 . ¶38 In this ease, as requested by the parties, the jury was instructed on the Mur-daugh factors. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Gretzler
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 33, ¶ 67 , 97 P.3d at 858 ; State v. Prince, 206 Ariz. 24, 27, ¶ 10 , 75 P.3d 114, 117 (2003); Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52-53 , 659 P.2d at 11-12 . ¶38 In this ease, as requested by the parties, the jury was instructed on the Mur-daugh factors. 2007Id. at 33, ¶ 67 , 97 P.3d at 858 ; State v. Prince, 206 Ariz. 24, 27, ¶ 10 , 75 P.3d 114, 117 (2003); Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52-53 , 659 P.2d at 11-12 . ¶38 In this ease, as requested by the parties, the jury was instructed on the Mur-daugh factors. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Barreras
green
2 sentences1995Barreras, 181 Ariz. at 522 , 892 P.2d at 858 ; State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268, 287 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1043 (1994) (“[0]nly under limited circumstances will the senselessness of a murder or helplessness of the victim ... lead to [finding heinousness or depravity].”). 1995Barreras, 181 Ariz. at 522 , 892 P.2d at 858 ; State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268, 287 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1043 (1994) (“[0]nly under limited circumstances will the senselessness of a murder or helplessness of the victim ... lead to [finding heinousness or depravity].”). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
green
2 sentences1988Redington, 442 U.S. at 575-76 , 99 S.Ct. at 2489 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 96 . 1988Redington, 442 U.S. at 575-76 , 99 S.Ct. at 2489 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 96 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.