6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co.green2 sentences2004Instead the language quoted from Williston indicates a more flexible approach: “In the formation of public contracts the formalities required by law or by the request for bids, such as a written contract, or the furnishing of a bond, often indicate that even after acceptance of the bid no contract is formed, until the requisite formality has been complied with.” Covington, 72 Ariz. at 285 , 233 P.2d at 840 (emphasis added) (quoting 1 Samuel Williston, Williston on Contracts § 31 (1936)). ¶ 27 Review of the cases cited in Covington as authority for Williston also supports the conclusion that, a 2004Instead the language quoted from Williston indicates a more flexible approach: “In the formation of public contracts the formalities required by law or by the request for bids, such as a written contract, or the furnishing of a bond, often indicate that even after acceptance of the bid no contract is formed, until the requisite formality has been complied with.” Covington, 72 Ariz. at 285 , 233 P.2d at 840 (emphasis added) (quoting 1 Samuel Williston, Williston on Contracts § 31 (1936)). ¶ 27 Review of the cases cited in Covington as authority for Williston also supports the conclusion that, a | 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. Hunt
green
2 sentences1982Thus, in State v. Hunt, 2 Ariz.App. 6 , 406 P.2d 208 (1965), Division 2 of this court considered the question of a parent’s right to use physical force in the control and discipline of a child, and applied a test of reasonableness, stating: “One cannot expound an inflexible rule which would define what, under all conditions, would be reasonable or excessive force in the disciplining of a child. 1982Thus, in State v. Hunt, 2 Ariz.App. 6 , 406 P.2d 208 (1965), Division 2 of this court considered the question of a parent’s right to use physical force in the control and discipline of a child, and applied a test of reasonableness, stating: “One cannot expound an inflexible rule which would define what, under all conditions, would be reasonable or excessive force in the disciplining of a child. | 2 | 1982–1983 |
People v. Tzitzikalakis
green
2 sentences2008"Most often there will be no reductions, as criminals rarely confer a benefit on their victims." Tzitzikalakis, 832 N.Y.S.2d 120 , 864 N.E.2d at 47 . 2008"Most often there will be no reductions, as criminals rarely confer a benefit on their victims." Tzitzikalakis, 832 N.Y.S.2d 120 , 864 N.E.2d at 47 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences1982On the other hand, entrapment as a matter of law is not established, and the question is one for the jury, when the state presents substantial evidence to rebut the defense, e.g., when the informant testifies that he did not supply the contraband but merely arranged the sale, Cox, supra ; State v. Hernandez, 96 Ariz. 28 , 391 P.2d 586 (1964), or where the informant testifies that he obtained the contraband pursuant to the defendant's instructions, State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10 , 583 P.2d 897 (1978); State v. Stanley, 123 Ariz. 95 , 597 P.2d 998 (App. 1979), or where the informant testifies th 1982On the other hand, entrapment as a matter of law is not established, and the question is one for the jury, when the state presents substantial evidence to rebut the defense, e.g., when the informant testifies that he did not supply the contraband but merely arranged the sale, Cox, supra ; State v. Hernandez, 96 Ariz. 28 , 391 P.2d 586 (1964), or where the informant testifies that he obtained the contraband pursuant to the defendant's instructions, State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10 , 583 P.2d 897 (1978); State v. Stanley, 123 Ariz. 95 , 597 P.2d 998 (App. 1979), or where the informant testifies th | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Stanley
green
2 sentences1982On the other hand, entrapment as a matter of law is not established, and the question is one for the jury, when the state presents substantial evidence to rebut the defense, e.g., when the informant testifies that he did not supply the contraband but merely arranged the sale, Cox, supra ; State v. Hernandez, 96 Ariz. 28 , 391 P.2d 586 (1964), or where the informant testifies that he obtained the contraband pursuant to the defendant's instructions, State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10 , 583 P.2d 897 (1978); State v. Stanley, 123 Ariz. 95 , 597 P.2d 998 (App. 1979), or where the informant testifies th 1982On the other hand, entrapment as a matter of law is not established, and the question is one for the jury, when the state presents substantial evidence to rebut the defense, e.g., when the informant testifies that he did not supply the contraband but merely arranged the sale, Cox, supra ; State v. Hernandez, 96 Ariz. 28 , 391 P.2d 586 (1964), or where the informant testifies that he obtained the contraband pursuant to the defendant's instructions, State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10 , 583 P.2d 897 (1978); State v. Stanley, 123 Ariz. 95 , 597 P.2d 998 (App. 1979), or where the informant testifies th | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Million
green
2 sentences1982On the other hand, entrapment as a matter of law is not established, and the question is one for the jury, when the state presents substantial evidence to rebut the defense, e.g., when the informant testifies that he did not supply the contraband but merely arranged the sale, Cox, supra ; State v. Hernandez, 96 Ariz. 28 , 391 P.2d 586 (1964), or where the informant testifies that he obtained the contraband pursuant to the defendant's instructions, State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10 , 583 P.2d 897 (1978); State v. Stanley, 123 Ariz. 95 , 597 P.2d 998 (App. 1979), or where the informant testifies th 1982On the other hand, entrapment as a matter of law is not established, and the question is one for the jury, when the state presents substantial evidence to rebut the defense, e.g., when the informant testifies that he did not supply the contraband but merely arranged the sale, Cox, supra ; State v. Hernandez, 96 Ariz. 28 , 391 P.2d 586 (1964), or where the informant testifies that he obtained the contraband pursuant to the defendant's instructions, State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10 , 583 P.2d 897 (1978); State v. Stanley, 123 Ariz. 95 , 597 P.2d 998 (App. 1979), or where the informant testifies th | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1977State v. Davis, 112 Ariz. 140 , 539 P.2d 897 (1975); State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304 , 518 P.2d 127 (1974); State v. DeGrate, 109 Ariz. 143 , 506 P.2d 1037 (1973). 1977State v. Davis, 112 Ariz. 140 , 539 P.2d 897 (1975); State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304 , 518 P.2d 127 (1974); State v. DeGrate, 109 Ariz. 143 , 506 P.2d 1037 (1973). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences1977State v. Davis, 112 Ariz. 140 , 539 P.2d 897 (1975); State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304 , 518 P.2d 127 (1974); State v. DeGrate, 109 Ariz. 143 , 506 P.2d 1037 (1973). 1977State v. Davis, 112 Ariz. 140 , 539 P.2d 897 (1975); State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304 , 518 P.2d 127 (1974); State v. DeGrate, 109 Ariz. 143 , 506 P.2d 1037 (1973). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. DeGrate
green
2 sentences1977State v. Davis, 112 Ariz. 140 , 539 P.2d 897 (1975); State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304 , 518 P.2d 127 (1974); State v. DeGrate, 109 Ariz. 143 , 506 P.2d 1037 (1973). 1977State v. Davis, 112 Ariz. 140 , 539 P.2d 897 (1975); State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304 , 518 P.2d 127 (1974); State v. DeGrate, 109 Ariz. 143 , 506 P.2d 1037 (1973). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.