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 1946–2022 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 Ex Rel. La Prade v. Coxgreen2 sentences2022La Prade v. Cox, 43 Ariz. 174, 183 (1934)); see also Lowing, 176 Ariz. at 108 (“[A]lthough we have a healthy respect for stare decisis, we will not be bound by a rule with nothing more than precedent to recommend it.”). 1946LaPrade v. Cox, supra [ 43 Ariz. 174 , 30 P.2d 829 ] : “While, under our judicial system, all courts have a strong respect for precedent, this respect is a reasonable one which balks at the perpetuation of error, and the doctrine of stare decisis should not prevail when a departure therefrom is necessary to avoid the perpetuation of pernicious error. % % í¡í % “In this case, however, there are several reasons why we should not hesitate to set aside the holding in Cox v. Stults, supra ( 42 Ariz. 1 , 21 P.2d 914 ). | 3 | 4 |
Lowing v. Allstate Insurancegreen1 sentence2022La Prade v. Cox, 43 Ariz. 174, 183 (1934)); see also Lowing, 176 Ariz. at 108 (“[A]lthough we have a healthy respect for stare decisis, we will not be bound by a rule with nothing more than precedent to recommend it.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penagreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., State v. Pena, 140 Ariz. 545, 548 , 683 P.2d 744, 747 (App.1983) (declining to follow prior precedent, “to avoid the perpetuation of error,” when it was based on an error in statutory interpretation). 2004See, e.g., State v. Pena, 140 Ariz. 545, 548 , 683 P.2d 744, 747 (App.1983) (declining to follow prior precedent, “to avoid the perpetuation of error,” when it was based on an error in statutory interpretation). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garvey v. Trew
green
1 sentence2022Although this Court has “a strong respect for precedent, this respect is a reasonable one which balks at the perpetuation of error, and the doctrine of stare decisis should not prevail when a departure therefrom is necessary to avoid the perpetuation of pernicious error.” Garvey, 64 Ariz. at 350 (quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
United States v. State of Minnesota
green
1 sentence1983United States v. Minnesota, 113 F.2d 770 (8th Cir.1940); State ex rel. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Cox v. Stults Eagle Drug Co.
green
2 sentences1946LaPrade v. Cox, supra [ 43 Ariz. 174 , 30 P.2d 829 ] : “While, under our judicial system, all courts have a strong respect for precedent, this respect is a reasonable one which balks at the perpetuation of error, and the doctrine of stare decisis should not prevail when a departure therefrom is necessary to avoid the perpetuation of pernicious error. % % í¡í % “In this case, however, there are several reasons why we should not hesitate to set aside the holding in Cox v. Stults, supra ( 42 Ariz. 1 , 21 P.2d 914 ). 1946LaPrade v. Cox, supra [ 43 Ariz. 174 , 30 P.2d 829 ] : “While, under our judicial system, all courts have a strong respect for precedent, this respect is a reasonable one which balks at the perpetuation of error, and the doctrine of stare decisis should not prevail when a departure therefrom is necessary to avoid the perpetuation of pernicious error. % % í¡í % “In this case, however, there are several reasons why we should not hesitate to set aside the holding in Cox v. Stults, supra ( 42 Ariz. 1 , 21 P.2d 914 ). | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences1946In the first place, the question does not directly involve private rights, and no rights are likely to have, as yet, grown up by reason of that decision, so that an altering of the rule laid down therein will not affect property rights already accrued. * * * In the third place, it is utterly unsupportéd by any authority, directly or indirectly. * * * “For the foregoing reasons, reluctant as we are to depart from the rule of stare de-cisis, we think this is one of the cases which require such a procedure * * Again, in the late case of Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm., 63 Ariz. 426 , 163 P.2 1946In the first place, the question does not directly involve private rights, and no rights are likely to have, as yet, grown up by reason of that decision, so that an altering of the rule laid down therein will not affect property rights already accrued. * * * In the third place, it is utterly unsupportéd by any authority, directly or indirectly. * * * “For the foregoing reasons, reluctant as we are to depart from the rule of stare de-cisis, we think this is one of the cases which require such a procedure * * Again, in the late case of Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm., 63 Ariz. 426 , 163 P.2 | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.