6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moreno v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2007“We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.” Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, ¶ 23 , 139 P.3d 612, 616 (2006). 2007“We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.” Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 94, ¶ 23 , 139 P.3d 612, 616 (2006). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wallgreen2 sentences2007Although Romero’s claim involves the interpretation of statutes and so raises a question of law, State v. Box, 205 Ariz. 492, ¶ 9 , 73 P.3d 623, 626 (App.2003), “[a]n error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may ... constitute an abuse of discretion,” State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, ¶ 12 , 126 P.3d 148, 150 (2006). 2007Although Romero’s claim involves the interpretation of statutes and so raises a question of law, State v. Box, 205 Ariz. 492, ¶ 9 , 73 P.3d 623, 626 (App.2003), “[a]n error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may ... constitute an abuse of discretion,” State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, ¶ 12 , 126 P.3d 148, 150 (2006). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Boxgreen2 sentences2007Although Romero’s claim involves the interpretation of statutes and so raises a question of law, State v. Box, 205 Ariz. 492, ¶ 9 , 73 P.3d 623, 626 (App.2003), “[a]n error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may ... constitute an abuse of discretion,” State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, ¶ 12 , 126 P.3d 148, 150 (2006). 2007Although Romero’s claim involves the interpretation of statutes and so raises a question of law, State v. Box, 205 Ariz. 492, ¶ 9 , 73 P.3d 623, 626 (App.2003), “[a]n error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may ... constitute an abuse of discretion,” State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, ¶ 12 , 126 P.3d 148, 150 (2006). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Willockgreen2 sentences2014See Willock, 696 F.Supp.2d at 571-72 ; Monteiro, 407 F.Supp.2d at 354-55 ; cf. Favela, 323 P.3d 716, ¶¶6, 9 , 323 P.3d at 718, 719 . ¶ 17 Romero further argues that even if the trial court properly allowed Powell to testify, the court erred by “failing to limit his testimony regarding the certainty of his conclusions.” He appears to rely on Monteiro in support of this argument. 407 F.Supp.2d at 355 . 2014See Willock, 696 F. Supp. 2d at 571-72 ; Monteiro, 407 F. Supp. 2d at 354-55 ; cf. Favela, 323 P.3d 716, ¶¶ 6, 9 , 323 P.3d at 718, 719 . ¶17 Romero further argues that even if the trial court properly allowed Powell to testify, the court erred by “failing to limit his testimony regarding the certainty of his conclusions.” He appears to rely on Monteiro in support of this argument. 407 F. Supp. 2d at 355 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Favelagreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Favela, 234 Ariz. 433, ¶¶ 6, 9 , 323 P.3d 716, 718, 719 (App. 2014) (expert testimony on latent fingerprint and palm print evidence sufficiently reliable to satisfy Rule 702 and Daubert). 8 STATE v. ROMERO Opinion of the Court abuse its discretion in denying Romero’s motion to preclude Powell’s testimony. 2014See, e.g., State v. Favela, 234 Ariz. 433, ¶¶ 6, 9 , 323 P.3d 716, 718, 719 (App. 2014) (expert testimony on latent fingerprint and palm print evidence sufficiently reliable to satisfy Rule 702 and Daubert). 8 STATE v. ROMERO Opinion of the Court abuse its discretion in denying Romero’s motion to preclude Powell’s testimony. | 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 of Arizona v. Luis Armando Vargas
green
1 sentence2026Vargas, 249 Ariz. at 190 ¶ 14. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2017Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Leon
green
1 sentence2017Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Monteiro
green
2 sentences2014See Willock, 696 F.Supp.2d at 571-72 ; Monteiro, 407 F.Supp.2d at 354-55 ; cf. Favela, 323 P.3d 716, ¶¶6, 9 , 323 P.3d at 718, 719 . ¶ 17 Romero further argues that even if the trial court properly allowed Powell to testify, the court erred by “failing to limit his testimony regarding the certainty of his conclusions.” He appears to rely on Monteiro in support of this argument. 407 F.Supp.2d at 355 . 2014See Willock, 696 F.Supp.2d at 571-72 ; Monteiro, 407 F.Supp.2d at 354-55 ; cf. Favela, 323 P.3d 716, ¶¶6, 9 , 323 P.3d at 718, 719 . ¶ 17 Romero further argues that even if the trial court properly allowed Powell to testify, the court erred by “failing to limit his testimony regarding the certainty of his conclusions.” He appears to rely on Monteiro in support of this argument. 407 F.Supp.2d at 355 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Mosley
green
2 sentences1982State v. Mosley, 119 Ariz. 393 , 581 P.2d 238 (1978). 1982State v. Mosley, 119 Ariz. 393 , 581 P.2d 238 (1978). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.