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 1987–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Korzep v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2021Ct., 172 Ariz. 534, 540 (App. 1991). ¶12 Because Repucci did not explicitly identify below the enumerated crimes under A.R.S. § 13-411(A) that supported her requested instruction, the parties dispute the standard of review we should apply to the armed-robbery, kidnapping, and sexual-assault theories advanced on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ellisongreen2 sentences2015Although the parties dispute which standard of review we should apply to this issue, we do not need to resolve that question because the record fails to demonstrate prejudice or bias as necessary for reversal under any applicable standard of review. ¶8 A defendant has a due process right “to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.” State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 172 , 771 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1989); see also State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 128, ¶ 35 , 140 P.3d 899, 911 (2006). 2015Although the parties dispute which standard of review we should apply to this issue, we do not need to resolve that question because the record fails to demonstrate prejudice or bias as necessary for reversal under any applicable standard of review. ¶8 A defendant has a due process right “to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.” State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 172 , 771 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1989); see also State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 128, ¶ 35 , 140 P.3d 899, 911 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carvergreen2 sentences2015Although the parties dispute which standard of review we should apply to this issue, we do not need to resolve that question because the record fails to demonstrate prejudice or bias as necessary for reversal under any applicable standard of review. ¶8 A defendant has a due process right “to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.” State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 172 , 771 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1989); see also State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 128, ¶ 35 , 140 P.3d 899, 911 (2006). 2015Although the parties dispute which standard of review we should apply to this issue, we do not need to resolve that question because the record fails to demonstrate prejudice or bias as necessary for reversal under any applicable standard of review. ¶8 A defendant has a due process right “to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.” State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 172 , 771 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1989); see also State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 128, ¶ 35 , 140 P.3d 899, 911 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.green2 sentences2007See Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 214 Ariz. 200, ¶ 3 , 150 P.3d 773, 774 (App.2007) (applicability of statute reviewed de novo); Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, ¶ 8 , 965 P.2d 47, 50 (App.1998) (propriety of summary judgment reviewed de novo). ¶ 10 The parties dispute the standard by which the validity of the ordinance must be measured. 2007See Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 214 Ariz. 200, ¶ 3 , 150 P.3d 773, 774 (App.2007) (applicability of statute reviewed de novo); Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, ¶ 8 , 965 P.2d 47, 50 (App.1998) (propriety of summary judgment reviewed de novo). ¶ 10 The parties dispute the standard by which the validity of the ordinance must be measured. | 1 | 1 |
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc.green2 sentences2007See Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 214 Ariz. 200, ¶ 3 , 150 P.3d 773, 774 (App.2007) (applicability of statute reviewed de novo); Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, ¶ 8 , 965 P.2d 47, 50 (App.1998) (propriety of summary judgment reviewed de novo). ¶ 10 The parties dispute the standard by which the validity of the ordinance must be measured. 2007See Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 214 Ariz. 200, ¶ 3 , 150 P.3d 773, 774 (App.2007) (applicability of statute reviewed de novo); Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, ¶ 8 , 965 P.2d 47, 50 (App.1998) (propriety of summary judgment reviewed de novo). ¶ 10 The parties dispute the standard by which the validity of the ordinance must be measured. | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp.green2 sentences1997Citing Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 181 Ariz. 188, 191 , 888 P.2d 1375, 1378 (App.1994), plaintiffs argue that we review such a ruling for an abuse of discretion. 1997Citing Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 181 Ariz. 188, 191 , 888 P.2d 1375, 1378 (App.1994), plaintiffs argue that we review such a ruling for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
La Paz County v. Yuma Countygreen2 sentences1995“The mere fact that the parties dispute a claim does not defeat the allowance of interest.” La Paz County v. Yuma County, 153 Ariz. 162, 168 , 735 P.2d 772, 778 (1987); see also Hall v. Schulte, 172 Ariz. 279, 284 , 836 P.2d 989, 994 (App.1992) (holding that derivative liability claim was liquidated even though derivative liability was disputed). 1995“The mere fact that the parties dispute a claim does not defeat the allowance of interest.” La Paz County v. Yuma County, 153 Ariz. 162, 168 , 735 P.2d 772, 778 (1987); see also Hall v. Schulte, 172 Ariz. 279, 284 , 836 P.2d 989, 994 (App.1992) (holding that derivative liability claim was liquidated even though derivative liability was disputed). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Schultegreen2 sentences1995“The mere fact that the parties dispute a claim does not defeat the allowance of interest.” La Paz County v. Yuma County, 153 Ariz. 162, 168 , 735 P.2d 772, 778 (1987); see also Hall v. Schulte, 172 Ariz. 279, 284 , 836 P.2d 989, 994 (App.1992) (holding that derivative liability claim was liquidated even though derivative liability was disputed). 1995“The mere fact that the parties dispute a claim does not defeat the allowance of interest.” La Paz County v. Yuma County, 153 Ariz. 162, 168 , 735 P.2d 772, 778 (1987); see also Hall v. Schulte, 172 Ariz. 279, 284 , 836 P.2d 989, 994 (App.1992) (holding that derivative liability claim was liquidated even though derivative liability was disputed). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Simpson, D/B/A Delta Enterprises v. Norwesco, Inc., a Corporationgreen2 sentences1987Simpson v. Norwesco, Inc., 583 F.2d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir.1978). 1987Simpson v. Norwesco, Inc., 583 F.2d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.