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 1977–2025 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. Adamsgreen2 sentences2019State v. Adams, 159 Ariz. 168, 170 (1988) (citations omitted). ¶11 Evaluating the VBR's impact, if any, on the Phillips rule must involve an examination of the federal and state due process requirements for defendants entering into a plea agreement weighed against victims' state constitutional rights to full restitution. 5 E.H. v. HON. 2019State v. Adams, 159 Ariz. 168, 170 (1988) (citations omitted). ¶11 Evaluating the VBR's impact, if any, on the Phillips rule must involve an examination of the federal and state due process requirements for defendants entering into a plea agreement weighed against victims' state constitutional rights to full restitution. 5 E.H. v. HON. | 1 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Andersongreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 257 Ariz. 226 , __, ¶ 21, 547 P.3d 345, 350 (2024) (“Our preclusion rules require a defendant to raise all known claims for relief in a single petition to prevent endless trial-court reviews of the same case.” (citation omitted)). 2025See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 257 Ariz. 226 , __, ¶ 21, 547 P.3d 345, 350 (2024) (“Our preclusion rules require a defendant to raise all known claims for relief in a single petition to prevent endless trial-court reviews of the same case.” (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Scheffergreen1 sentence2018Evid. 403, 802; United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998) (concluding a defendant’s right to present evidence is subject to compliance with reasonable evidentiary rules). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valdezgreen2 sentences2002State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9, 13-14 , 770 P.2d 313, 317-18 (1989). 2002State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9, 13-14 , 770 P.2d 313, 317-18 (1989). | 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 v. Rasul
green
1 sentence2018State v. Rasul, 216 Ariz. 491 , 493 ¶ 4 (App. 2007). ¶13 In February 2012, finding that defense counsel was engaging in “blatant and intentional interference with the effort to restore an 2Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 4 STATE v. PHILLIPS Decision of the Court incompetent defendant, as well as a direct attack on the entire restoration program,” the superior court restricted defense counsel’s visitation with Phillips while in restoration to one hour in-person contact every 30 days and one fiv | 1 | 2018–2018 |
McCarthy v. United States
green
2 sentences1988The majority cites McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) as support for its assertion that the Phillips rule has a constitutional basis. 1988The majority cites McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) as support for its assertion that the Phillips rule has a constitutional basis. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States v. S. Lawrence Kahn, Arthur B. Sachs and M. Prial Curran
green
1 sentence1977United States v. Kahn, 381 F.2d 824 (7th Cir. 1967); United States v. Frumento, 405 F.Supp. 23 (E.D.Pa.1975). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
United States v. Frumento
green
1 sentence1977United States v. Kahn, 381 F.2d 824 (7th Cir. 1967); United States v. Frumento, 405 F.Supp. 23 (E.D.Pa.1975). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.