6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2009 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. Ramseygreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533, ¶ 7 , 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (stating that the defendant had not specifically articulated how his defense was impaired or prejudiced by the amended indictment when his defense was that he did not commit the alleged acts). [9] ¶ 30 Based on the foregoing, the record supports finding that Appellant's constitutional rights, including his Sixth Amendment right to notice, were not violated, and he has not shown that his defense was prejudiced or hindered in any way by a lack of notice. 2009See, e.g., State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 533, ¶ 7 , 124 P.3d 756, 760 (App. 2005) (stating that the defendant had not specifically articulated how his defense was impaired or prejudiced by the amended indictment when his defense was that he did not commit the alleged acts). [9] ¶ 30 Based on the foregoing, the record supports finding that Appellant's constitutional rights, including his Sixth Amendment right to notice, were not violated, and he has not shown that his defense was prejudiced or hindered in any way by a lack of notice. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2009See generally Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 (stating that the appellant bears the burden of proving actual prejudice from an amendment); Delgado, 174 Ariz. at 255 , 848 P.2d at 340 . ¶ 31 Finally, Appellant notes that, in seeking amendment of the indictment, the State failed to comply with the time requirements set forth in Rule 16.1(b) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2009See generally Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 (stating that the appellant bears the burden of proving actual prejudice from an amendment); Delgado, 174 Ariz. at 255 , 848 P.2d at 340 . ¶ 31 Finally, Appellant notes that, in seeking amendment of the indictment, the State failed to comply with the time requirements set forth in Rule 16.1(b) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. | 1 | 1 |
McKaney v. Foremangreen2 sentences2006McKaney v. Foreman, 209 Ariz. 268 , 271-72 ¶¶ 16-17, 100 P.3d 18, 21-22 (2004). 2006McKaney v. Foreman, 209 Ariz. 268 , 271-72 ¶¶ 16-17, 100 P.3d 18, 21-22 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Allen Ray Jordangreen2 sentences2004See United States v. Jordan, 291 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2002). 2004See United States v. Jordan, 291 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2002). | 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. Delgado
green
2 sentences2009See generally Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 (stating that the appellant bears the burden of proving actual prejudice from an amendment); Delgado, 174 Ariz. at 255 , 848 P.2d at 340 . ¶ 31 Finally, Appellant notes that, in seeking amendment of the indictment, the State failed to comply with the time requirements set forth in Rule 16.1(b) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2009See generally Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 (stating that the appellant bears the burden of proving actual prejudice from an amendment); Delgado, 174 Ariz. at 255 , 848 P.2d at 340 . ¶ 31 Finally, Appellant notes that, in seeking amendment of the indictment, the State failed to comply with the time requirements set forth in Rule 16.1(b) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
green
2 sentences2006The essential purpose of the doctrine of separation of powers is "to allow for independent functioning of each coequal branch of government within its assigned sphere of responsibility, free from risk of control, interference, or intimidation by other branches." Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 760-61 , 102 S.Ct. 2690 , 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982); see also The Federalist Papers, Nos. 47 and 48. 2006The essential purpose of the doctrine of separation of powers is "to allow for independent functioning of each coequal branch of government within its assigned sphere of responsibility, free from risk of control, interference, or intimidation by other branches." Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 760-61 , 102 S.Ct. 2690 , 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982); see also The Federalist Papers, Nos. 47 and 48. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Superior Court
neutral
2 sentences1986See Rule 13.5(c); State v. Superior Court, 121 Ariz. 341 , 590 P.2d 457 (App. 1977). 1986See Rule 13.5(c); State v. Superior Court, 121 Ariz. 341 , 590 P.2d 457 (App. 1977). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Andrus
green
2 sentences1975State v. Cartwright, supra; State v. Andrus, 17 Ariz.App. 70 , 495 P.2d 510 (1972). 1975State v. Cartwright, supra; State v. Andrus, 17 Ariz.App. 70 , 495 P.2d 510 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.