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 1962–1990 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. Baileygreen2 sentences1975In State v. Bailey, supra, 107 Ariz. at p. 452, 489 P.2d at 262 , we held that: “In determining whether an instruction on flight is warranted by the evidence, this court has followed the test laid down in State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 . 1975In State v. Bailey, supra, 107 Ariz. at p. 452, 489 P.2d at 262 , we held that: “In determining whether an instruction on flight is warranted by the evidence, this court has followed the test laid down in State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 . | 2 | 2 |
Korn v. . Campbellgreen2 sentences1990The court in O’Malley divided restrictive covenants into three distinct classes: In the first class may be placed those which are entered into with the design to carry out a general scheme for the im *387 provement or development of real property____ The second class embraces those cases in which the grantor exacts a covenant from his grantee, presumptively or actually, for the benefit and protection of contiguous or neighboring lands which the former retains____ Then there is a third class, where there are mutual covenants between the owners of adjoining lands, in which the restrictions place 1990The court in O’Malley divided restrictive covenants into three distinct classes: In the first class may be placed those which are entered into with the design to carry out a general scheme for the im *387 provement or development of real property____ The second class embraces those cases in which the grantor exacts a covenant from his grantee, presumptively or actually, for the benefit and protection of contiguous or neighboring lands which the former retains____ Then there is a third class, where there are mutual covenants between the owners of adjoining lands, in which the restrictions place | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Owen v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1975In State v. Bailey, supra, 107 Ariz. at p. 452, 489 P.2d at 262 , we held that: “In determining whether an instruction on flight is warranted by the evidence, this court has followed the test laid down in State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 . 1973We have stated: “In determining whether an instruction on flight is warranted by the evidence, this court has followed the test laid down in State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 . | 3 | 1971–1975 |
Etchieson v. Texas
green
2 sentences1975In State v. Bailey, supra, 107 Ariz. at p. 452, 489 P.2d at 262 , we held that: “In determining whether an instruction on flight is warranted by the evidence, this court has followed the test laid down in State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 . 1975In State v. Bailey, supra, 107 Ariz. at p. 452, 489 P.2d at 262 , we held that: “In determining whether an instruction on flight is warranted by the evidence, this court has followed the test laid down in State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 . | 3 | 1971–1975 |
State v. Owen
green
2 sentences1975In State v. Bailey, supra, 107 Ariz. at p. 452, 489 P.2d at 262 , we held that: “In determining whether an instruction on flight is warranted by the evidence, this court has followed the test laid down in State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 . 1975In State v. Bailey, supra, 107 Ariz. at p. 452, 489 P.2d at 262 , we held that: “In determining whether an instruction on flight is warranted by the evidence, this court has followed the test laid down in State v. Owen, 94 Ariz. 404 , 385 P.2d 700 (1963), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct. 1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 . | 3 | 1971–1975 |
O'Malley v. Central Methodist Church
green
2 sentences1990The court in O’Malley divided restrictive covenants into three distinct classes: In the first class may be placed those which are entered into with the design to carry out a general scheme for the im *387 provement or development of real property____ The second class embraces those cases in which the grantor exacts a covenant from his grantee, presumptively or actually, for the benefit and protection of contiguous or neighboring lands which the former retains____ Then there is a third class, where there are mutual covenants between the owners of adjoining lands, in which the restrictions place 1990The court in O’Malley divided restrictive covenants into three distinct classes: In the first class may be placed those which are entered into with the design to carry out a general scheme for the im *387 provement or development of real property____ The second class embraces those cases in which the grantor exacts a covenant from his grantee, presumptively or actually, for the benefit and protection of contiguous or neighboring lands which the former retains____ Then there is a third class, where there are mutual covenants between the owners of adjoining lands, in which the restrictions place | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. White
green
2 sentences1973State v. White, 13 Ariz.App. 265 , 475 P.2d 750 (1970); State v. McPherson, 12 Ariz.App. 281 , 469 P.2d 847 (1970). 1973State v. White, 13 Ariz.App. 265 , 475 P.2d 750 (1970); State v. McPherson, 12 Ariz.App. 281 , 469 P.2d 847 (1970). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. McPherson
green
2 sentences1973State v. White, 13 Ariz.App. 265 , 475 P.2d 750 (1970); State v. McPherson, 12 Ariz.App. 281 , 469 P.2d 847 (1970). 1973State v. White, 13 Ariz.App. 265 , 475 P.2d 750 (1970); State v. McPherson, 12 Ariz.App. 281 , 469 P.2d 847 (1970). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Miller v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1962Emery v. Superior *189 Court, 89 Ariz. 246 , 360 P.2d 1025 ; Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Ariz. 61 , 185 P. 357 ; Sanford v. Dist. 1962Emery v. Superior *189 Court, 89 Ariz. 246 , 360 P.2d 1025 ; Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Ariz. 61 , 185 P. 357 ; Sanford v. Dist. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Emery v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
green
2 sentences1962Emery v. Superior *189 Court, 89 Ariz. 246 , 360 P.2d 1025 ; Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Ariz. 61 , 185 P. 357 ; Sanford v. Dist. 1962Emery v. Superior *189 Court, 89 Ariz. 246 , 360 P.2d 1025 ; Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Ariz. 61 , 185 P. 357 ; Sanford v. Dist. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.