6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/stategreen1 sentence2024See Garcia v. Butler, 251 Ariz. 191 , 194 ¶ 12 (2021). ¶18 We therefore conclude that the two factors listed in subsection (C)(2) are not exhaustive. | 1 | 1 |
Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.green1 sentence2023Id. ¶35 Maxwell acknowledged that unconscionability arises based on “the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract.” See 184 Ariz. at 88 (quoting Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 130 Ariz. 596, 602 (1981)); see also A.R.S. § 47-2302(A). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gretzlergreen2 sentences1997In State v. Gretzler, this court listed the factors to be considered in determining whether a murder was especially heinous or depraved: (1) relishing; (2) gratuitous violence; (3) mutilation; (4) senselessness; and (5) helplessness. 135 Ariz. 42, 51-52 , 659 P.2d 1, 10-11 (1983). 1997In State v. Gretzler, this court listed the factors to be considered in determining whether a murder was especially heinous or depraved: (1) relishing; (2) gratuitous violence; (3) mutilation; (4) senselessness; and (5) helplessness. 135 Ariz. 42, 51-52 , 659 P.2d 1, 10-11 (1983). | 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 of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau
green
2 sentences2017Id. ¶17 Here, the trial court made the latter two findings on the record. 2017Id. ¶15 The trial court did not err, much less fundamentally err, by failing to sever the charges involving different victims because, contrary to Carr’s argument on appeal, the acts against each victim were of similar character and would have been cross-admissible under Rule 404(c) at separate trials. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Id. ¶35 Maxwell acknowledged that unconscionability arises based on “the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract.” See 184 Ariz. at 88 (quoting Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 130 Ariz. 596, 602 (1981)); see also A.R.S. § 47-2302(A). 2023Id. ¶35 Maxwell acknowledged that unconscionability arises based on “the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract.” See 184 Ariz. at 88 (quoting Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 130 Ariz. 596, 602 (1981)); see also A.R.S. § 47-2302(A). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences1978In Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), the Court listed as the factors which indicate reliability: “. . . the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. at 382 . 1978In Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), the Court listed as the factors which indicate reliability: “. . . the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. at 382 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.