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 1982–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/stategreen1 sentence2021See Clements v. Bernini, 249 Ariz. 434 , 438 ¶ 1 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Polandgreen2 sentences1995Id. at 283 , 645 P.2d at 798 (internal citations omitted). 1995Id. at 283 , 645 P.2d at 798 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Brewergreen1 sentence1982See also, Smith v. Brewer, supra; United States v. Pinto, supra. In a factual situation analogous to the instant case, the Illinois Court of Appeals discussed the showing that is required to demonstrate “prejudice” from the introduction of extraneous material in a civil case. 5 In Heaver v. Ward, 68 Ill.App.3d 236 , 24 Ill.Dec. 930 , 386 N.E.2d 134 (1979), the court discussed the affidavits of two jurors that a fellow juror had diagrammed an intersection which was at issue in the case and had brought that diagram and a copy of “Rules of the Road”, an official booklet designed to instruct appli | 1 | 1 |
BULGER v. McCLAYgreen1 sentence1982See, e.g., Bulger v. McClay, 575 F.2d 407 (2nd Cir. 1978), cert. denied sub. nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
R.S./s.E. v. Hon. thompson/teddy Vanders
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 119 ¶ 24. ¶40 Rather than merely rejecting the majority’s substantial probability standard in the direct disclosure context, the dissent appears to repudiate the very concept of a conditional discovery standard centered, in part, on balancing a defendant’s due process right to discovery with a victim’s right to privacy based on the likelihood that evidence of constitutional dimension exists within the universe of a victim’s requested information. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Kellywood
green
1 sentence2021Later, Kellywood clarified that “[i]n light of the competing constitutional interests, as well as the ordinarily privileged nature of patient-provider communications, . . . the burden of demonstrating a ‘reasonable possibility’ is not insubstantial, and necessarily requires more than conclusory assertions or speculation on the part of the requesting party.” 246 Ariz. at 48 ¶ 9; see also Fox-Embrey, 249 Ariz. at 170–71 ¶¶ 23–27 (discussing subsequent cases applying this standard). ¶24 Contrary to Victims’ contentions, the reasonable possibility standard is comprehensible and workable. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1983Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 1983Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. Pinto
green
1 sentence1982See also, Smith v. Brewer, supra; United States v. Pinto, supra. In a factual situation analogous to the instant case, the Illinois Court of Appeals discussed the showing that is required to demonstrate “prejudice” from the introduction of extraneous material in a civil case. 5 In Heaver v. Ward, 68 Ill.App.3d 236 , 24 Ill.Dec. 930 , 386 N.E.2d 134 (1979), the court discussed the affidavits of two jurors that a fellow juror had diagrammed an intersection which was at issue in the case and had brought that diagram and a copy of “Rules of the Road”, an official booklet designed to instruct appli | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Heaver v. Ward
green
2 sentences1982See also, Smith v. Brewer, supra; United States v. Pinto, supra. In a factual situation analogous to the instant case, the Illinois Court of Appeals discussed the showing that is required to demonstrate “prejudice” from the introduction of extraneous material in a civil case. 5 In Heaver v. Ward, 68 Ill.App.3d 236 , 24 Ill.Dec. 930 , 386 N.E.2d 134 (1979), the court discussed the affidavits of two jurors that a fellow juror had diagrammed an intersection which was at issue in the case and had brought that diagram and a copy of “Rules of the Road”, an official booklet designed to instruct appli 1982See also, Smith v. Brewer, supra; United States v. Pinto, supra. In a factual situation analogous to the instant case, the Illinois Court of Appeals discussed the showing that is required to demonstrate “prejudice” from the introduction of extraneous material in a civil case. 5 In Heaver v. Ward, 68 Ill.App.3d 236 , 24 Ill.Dec. 930 , 386 N.E.2d 134 (1979), the court discussed the affidavits of two jurors that a fellow juror had diagrammed an intersection which was at issue in the case and had brought that diagram and a copy of “Rules of the Road”, an official booklet designed to instruct appli | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.