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 1925–2022 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. Bruggemangreen1 sentence2022Id. (“Although the last sentence of the instruction is not drafted as artfully as it should be, we find the error was not fatal when the sentence is read in the context of the whole instruction.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lehrgreen2 sentences2014Lehr appears to deal with a potentially short time frame in deciding to pick up a rock and use it as a weapon, Lehr, 227 Ariz. 140, ¶ 58 , 254 P.3d at 391 , and Nelson concerns a potentially long period in which the defendant left to purchase a weapon, Nelson, 229 Ariz. 180, ¶ 23 , 273 P.3d at 638 . ¶ 9 Lizardi also argues that the purported error in including the last sentence of the instruction was compounded by the state’s closing arguments, in which the prosecutor stated that the reflection required “could be seconds” or could be “instantaneous.” But the prosecutor’s argument was based on 2014Lehr appears to deal with a potentially short time frame in deciding to pick up a rock and use it as a weapon, Lehr, 227 Ariz. 140, ¶ 58 , 254 P.3d at 391 , and Nelson concerns a potentially long period in which the defendant left to purchase a weapon, Nelson, 229 Ariz. 180, ¶ 23 , 273 P.3d at 638 . ¶ 9 Lizardi also argues that the purported error in including the last sentence of the instruction was compounded by the state’s closing arguments, in which the prosecutor stated that the reflection required “could be seconds” or could be “instantaneous.” But the prosecutor’s argument was based on | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2014Lehr appears to deal with a potentially short time frame in deciding to pick up a rock and use it as a weapon, Lehr, 227 Ariz. 140, ¶ 58 , 254 P.3d at 391 , and Nelson concerns a potentially long period in which the defendant left to purchase a weapon, Nelson, 229 Ariz. 180, ¶ 23 , 273 P.3d at 638 . ¶ 9 Lizardi also argues that the purported error in including the last sentence of the instruction was compounded by the state’s closing arguments, in which the prosecutor stated that the reflection required “could be seconds” or could be “instantaneous.” But the prosecutor’s argument was based on 2014Lehr appears to deal with a potentially short time frame in deciding to pick up a rock and use it as a weapon, Lehr, 227 Ariz. 140, ¶ 58 , 254 P.3d at 391 , and Nelson concerns a potentially long period in which the defendant left to purchase a weapon, Nelson, 229 Ariz. 180, ¶ 23 , 273 P.3d at 638 . ¶ 9 Lizardi also argues that the purported error in including the last sentence of the instruction was compounded by the state’s closing arguments, in which the prosecutor stated that the reflection required “could be seconds” or could be “instantaneous.” But the prosecutor’s argument was based on | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2013State v. Martinez, 218 Ariz. 421, ¶ 23 , 189 P.3d 348, 354-55 (2008). 2013State v. Martinez, 218 Ariz. 421, ¶ 23 , 189 P.3d 348, 354-55 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Tavasci
green
2 sentences1999Under these circumstances, the notice should be upheld. ¶ 15 While we find plaintiffs notice of appeal sufficient, we requested that the parties provide supplemental briefs on whether Davis v. Tavasci, 1 Ariz.App. 380 , 403 P.2d 315 (1965), correctly held that absent a Rule 54(b) certification, the last sentence of the rule does not require the entry of a single judgment adjudicating all claims by all parties. 1999Under these circumstances, the notice should be upheld. ¶ 15 While we find plaintiffs notice of appeal sufficient, we requested that the parties provide supplemental briefs on whether Davis v. Tavasci, 1 Ariz.App. 380 , 403 P.2d 315 (1965), correctly held that absent a Rule 54(b) certification, the last sentence of the rule does not require the entry of a single judgment adjudicating all claims by all parties. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Button v. Wakelin
green
2 sentences1939That no written instrument was ever executed extending the time of the payment of the note. ...” (This last sentence is in error for it is admitted by the pleadings that there was a written extension, the defendants saying until January 28, 1931, and plaintiff until January 28, 1934.) 41 Corpus Juris, 808, section 952 (c), reads as follows: “An agreement by a mortgagee to extend the. time for payment of the debt secured by a mortgage, whether indorsed on the instrument or otherwise evidenced, will continue the lien of the mortgage and all his rights and remedies thereunder for the new period. 1939That no written instrument was ever executed extending the time of the payment of the note. ...” (This last sentence is in error for it is admitted by the pleadings that there was a written extension, the defendants saying until January 28, 1931, and plaintiff until January 28, 1934.) 41 Corpus Juris, 808, section 952 (c), reads as follows: “An agreement by a mortgagee to extend the. time for payment of the debt secured by a mortgage, whether indorsed on the instrument or otherwise evidenced, will continue the lien of the mortgage and all his rights and remedies thereunder for the new period. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Young Mines Co. v. Blackburn
green
2 sentences1925Appellant makes particular complaint of this instruction on account of the use of the word “sole” before the word “negligence.” The use of the word “solely,” in an instruction somewhat similar to this, was discussed at length in the case of Young Mines Co., Ltd., v. Blackburn, 22 Ariz. 199 , 196 Pac. 167 . 1925Appellant makes particular complaint of this instruction on account of the use of the word “sole” before the word “negligence.” The use of the word “solely,” in an instruction somewhat similar to this, was discussed at length in the case of Young Mines Co., Ltd., v. Blackburn, 22 Ariz. 199 , 196 Pac. 167 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.