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 1913–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuelagreen1 sentence2023See State v. Rojo- Valenzuela, 237 Ariz. 448, 451, ¶ 11 (2015) (recognizing that “trial is the place for the defense to question weaknesses” in a witness’ ability to make an identification). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Arizona Registrar of Contractorsgreen1 sentence2022I likewise agree (see supra ¶¶ 12–13) that the Act imposes: (1) a time requirement—the appeal must be filed within 35 days of service of the decision to be reviewed, see A.R.S. § 12-904(A); (2) a place requirement—the appeal must be filed in the superior court, not with the administrative body, see A.R.S. § 12-905(A); see also Johnson v. Ariz. Registrar of Contractors, 242 Ariz. 409 , 411–12, ¶¶ 6–9 (App. 2017); and (3) a manner requirement—for our purposes, the criteria set forth in § 12-904(A). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Canezgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tresizegreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 1 |
Manson v. Brathwaitegreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 1 |
Kendall v. Truegreen1 sentence2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Jesseegreen1 sentence2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 1 |
Joehnk v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 1 |
People v. Barbara H.green2 sentences2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie 2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 1 |
In Re Hopgreen2 sentences2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie 2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 1 |
Quesnell v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie 2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 1 |
Doremus v. Farrellgreen1 sentence2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 1 |
People v. Barbara H.green2 sentences2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie 2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Griffith v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Lehr
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Foster v. California
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Dessureault
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d 2015See, e.g., Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 , 97 S.Ct. *452 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-201 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. 967 ; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 150 ¶ 48, 42 P.3d 564, 581 (2002); Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49-51, 38 P.3d at 1184 ; State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. 571, 574-75 , 623 P.2d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Suzuki v. Yuen
green
1 sentence2007Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after the patie | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Jeffries v. Olesen
green
1 sentence1967Petitioners also cite the case of Jeffries v. Olesen, 121 F.Supp. 463 (S.D.Cal.1954). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
M. Grau e Hijos v. District Court of Aguadilla
neutral
1 sentence1913Rep. 61 [ 35 Pac. 900 ]; Estate of Blythe, 103 Cal. 350 [ 37 Pac. 392 ]; In re Levinson, 108 Cal. 450 [ 41 Pac. 483 , 42 Pac. 479 ], supra.) Indeed, as early as Gurnee v. Maloney, supra, it was decided that the court in probate not only had jurisdiction to fix the value of the services rendered by an attorney to the administrator on behalf of the estate as an expense of administration, but that the court had exclusive original jurisdiction to adjust and enforce such demand. ’ ’ All persons interested in the estate, including the heirs and creditors, are entitled to be heard on, the question of | 1 | 1913–1913 |
In re Estate of Ogier
green
1 sentence1913Rep. 61 [ 35 Pac. 900 ]; Estate of Blythe, 103 Cal. 350 [ 37 Pac. 392 ]; In re Levinson, 108 Cal. 450 [ 41 Pac. 483 , 42 Pac. 479 ], supra.) Indeed, as early as Gurnee v. Maloney, supra, it was decided that the court in probate not only had jurisdiction to fix the value of the services rendered by an attorney to the administrator on behalf of the estate as an expense of administration, but that the court had exclusive original jurisdiction to adjust and enforce such demand. ’ ’ All persons interested in the estate, including the heirs and creditors, are entitled to be heard on, the question of | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Merrill v. Merrill
green
1 sentence1913Rep. 61 [ 35 Pac. 900 ]; Estate of Blythe, 103 Cal. 350 [ 37 Pac. 392 ]; In re Levinson, 108 Cal. 450 [ 41 Pac. 483 , 42 Pac. 479 ], supra.) Indeed, as early as Gurnee v. Maloney, supra, it was decided that the court in probate not only had jurisdiction to fix the value of the services rendered by an attorney to the administrator on behalf of the estate as an expense of administration, but that the court had exclusive original jurisdiction to adjust and enforce such demand. ’ ’ All persons interested in the estate, including the heirs and creditors, are entitled to be heard on, the question of | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Welsh v. Pennie
neutral
1 sentence1913Rep. 61 [ 35 Pac. 900 ]; Estate of Blythe, 103 Cal. 350 [ 37 Pac. 392 ]; In re Levinson, 108 Cal. 450 [ 41 Pac. 483 , 42 Pac. 479 ], supra.) Indeed, as early as Gurnee v. Maloney, supra, it was decided that the court in probate not only had jurisdiction to fix the value of the services rendered by an attorney to the administrator on behalf of the estate as an expense of administration, but that the court had exclusive original jurisdiction to adjust and enforce such demand. ’ ’ All persons interested in the estate, including the heirs and creditors, are entitled to be heard on, the question of | 1 | 1913–1913 |
In re Estate of Levinson
green
1 sentence1913Rep. 61 [ 35 Pac. 900 ]; Estate of Blythe, 103 Cal. 350 [ 37 Pac. 392 ]; In re Levinson, 108 Cal. 450 [ 41 Pac. 483 , 42 Pac. 479 ], supra.) Indeed, as early as Gurnee v. Maloney, supra, it was decided that the court in probate not only had jurisdiction to fix the value of the services rendered by an attorney to the administrator on behalf of the estate as an expense of administration, but that the court had exclusive original jurisdiction to adjust and enforce such demand. ’ ’ All persons interested in the estate, including the heirs and creditors, are entitled to be heard on, the question of | 1 | 1913–1913 |
People v. James
neutral
1 sentence1913Rep. 61 [ 35 Pac. 900 ]; Estate of Blythe, 103 Cal. 350 [ 37 Pac. 392 ]; In re Levinson, 108 Cal. 450 [ 41 Pac. 483 , 42 Pac. 479 ], supra.) Indeed, as early as Gurnee v. Maloney, supra, it was decided that the court in probate not only had jurisdiction to fix the value of the services rendered by an attorney to the administrator on behalf of the estate as an expense of administration, but that the court had exclusive original jurisdiction to adjust and enforce such demand. ’ ’ All persons interested in the estate, including the heirs and creditors, are entitled to be heard on, the question of | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.