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 1932–1981 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 |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. Barrettgreen2 sentences1974The rule concerning claims against the county are clearly set forth in Austin v. Barrett, 41 Ariz. 138, 141 , 16 P.2d 12, 13 (1932): “The first and principal rule to be followed, in determining whether a claim against a county is legal, is that the person making the claim must show some statute affirmatively authorizing it, ei ther directly or by reasonable implication. [citation omitted] And the right of an officer to demand expenses incurred by him in the performance of his official duty is no exception to the rule, [citations omitted] All other considerations are subordinate to these.” We a 1974The rule concerning claims against the county are clearly set forth in Austin v. Barrett, 41 Ariz. 138, 141 , 16 P.2d 12, 13 (1932): “The first and principal rule to be followed, in determining whether a claim against a county is legal, is that the person making the claim must show some statute affirmatively authorizing it, ei ther directly or by reasonable implication. [citation omitted] And the right of an officer to demand expenses incurred by him in the performance of his official duty is no exception to the rule, [citations omitted] All other considerations are subordinate to these.” We a | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Salvuccigreen2 sentences1981The United States Supreme Court has stated: *309 “ * * * the values of the Fourth Amendment are preserved by a rule which limits the availability of the exclusionary rule to defendants who have been subjected to a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.” United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 95 , 100 S.Ct. 2547, 2554 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619, 630 (1980). 1981The United States Supreme Court has stated: *309 “ * * * the values of the Fourth Amendment are preserved by a rule which limits the availability of the exclusionary rule to defendants who have been subjected to a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.” United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 95 , 100 S.Ct. 2547, 2554 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619, 630 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Holdren v. Petersongreen2 sentences1974The rule concerning claims against the county are clearly set forth in Austin v. Barrett, 41 Ariz. 138, 141 , 16 P.2d 12, 13 (1932): “The first and principal rule to be followed, in determining whether a claim against a county is legal, is that the person making the claim must show some statute affirmatively authorizing it, ei ther directly or by reasonable implication. [citation omitted] And the right of an officer to demand expenses incurred by him in the performance of his official duty is no exception to the rule, [citations omitted] All other considerations are subordinate to these.” We a 1974The rule concerning claims against the county are clearly set forth in Austin v. Barrett, 41 Ariz. 138, 141 , 16 P.2d 12, 13 (1932): “The first and principal rule to be followed, in determining whether a claim against a county is legal, is that the person making the claim must show some statute affirmatively authorizing it, ei ther directly or by reasonable implication. [citation omitted] And the right of an officer to demand expenses incurred by him in the performance of his official duty is no exception to the rule, [citations omitted] All other considerations are subordinate to these.” We 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Santa Cruz v. Barnes
green
2 sentences1940County of Santa Cruz v. Barnes, 9 Ariz. 42 , 76 Pac. 621 . 1940County of Santa Cruz v. Barnes, 9 Ariz. 42 , 76 Pac. 621 . | 4 | 1932–1940 |
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.