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 1973–2023 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 of Arizona v. Misergreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., State v. Miser, 50 Ariz. 244, 256 (1937) (noting that the legislature allowed claimants to bring suits against the state only after specified “terms and conditions” had been satisfied); State v. Angle, 56 Ariz. 46, 50 (1940) (observing that the legislature authorized persons to bring contract and negligence-based claims against the state). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Anglegreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., State v. Miser, 50 Ariz. 244, 256 (1937) (noting that the legislature allowed claimants to bring suits against the state only after specified “terms and conditions” had been satisfied); State v. Angle, 56 Ariz. 46, 50 (1940) (observing that the legislature authorized persons to bring contract and negligence-based claims against the state). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Reinsteingreen2 sentences2000Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 322 , 987 P.2d 779, 808 (1999) (upholding legislature's selection of rules to apply to new civil commitment procedure). ¶ 54 The distinction between what is constitutionally allowed by the separation of powers doctrine becomes apparent when we compare Section II of the majority opinion, from which I dissent, with Section V, in which I join. 2000Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 322 , 987 P.2d 779, 808 (1999) (upholding legislature's selection of rules to apply to new civil commitment procedure). ¶ 54 The distinction between what is constitutionally allowed by the separation of powers doctrine becomes apparent when we compare Section II of the majority opinion, from which I dissent, with Section V, in which I join. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Sternberg
green
2 sentences2016Thus, in these circumstances the superior court was not only authorized but required to rule on Mashni’s fee application. ¶17 Citing Taylor v. Sternberg, 293 U.S. 470 , 55 S. Ct. 260 (1935), Sunnyslope suggests that the superior court lacked the power to rule on the fees claim. 2016Thus, in these circumstances the superior court was not only authorized but required to rule on Mashni’s fee application. ¶17 Citing Taylor v. Sternberg, 293 U.S. 470 , 55 S. Ct. 260 (1935), Sunnyslope suggests that the superior court lacked the power to rule on the fees claim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley
green
2 sentences1991In Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley, 163 Ariz. 571 , 789 P.2d 1072 (App.1989), the question presented was whether, under A.R.S. § 9-462.06, a board of adjustment had de novo review authority on an appeal from a decision of its hearing officer. 1991In Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley, 163 Ariz. 571 , 789 P.2d 1072 (App.1989), the question presented was whether, under A.R.S. § 9-462.06, a board of adjustment had de novo review authority on an appeal from a decision of its hearing officer. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Dixon
neutral
2 sentences1973State v. Lopez, supra; State v. Dixon, 6 Ariz.App. 210 , 431 P.2d 105 (1967). 1973State v. Lopez, supra; State v. Dixon, 6 Ariz.App. 210 , 431 P.2d 105 (1967). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Pate v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1973The difficulties of retrospectively determining an accused’s competency to stand trial were emphasized in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L. 1973The difficulties of retrospectively determining an accused’s competency to stand trial were emphasized in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences1973While the trial court is given the power' under the rule to vacate, modify, or set aside its judgments, and the rule is applicable to both civil and criminal cases, State v. Lopez, 96 Ariz. 169 , 393 P.2d 263 (1964), this power is subject to the exception that upon perfecting of an appeal the trial court loses jurisdiction of the case. 1973While the trial court is given the power' under the rule to vacate, modify, or set aside its judgments, and the rule is applicable to both civil and criminal cases, State v. Lopez, 96 Ariz. 169 , 393 P.2d 263 (1964), this power is subject to the exception that upon perfecting of an appeal the trial court loses jurisdiction of the case. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.