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 1995–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
JILLY v. Rayesgreen2 sentences2017A dismissal under AR.S. § 12-2603 is not a sanction for a discovery violation, but a substantive pleading failure, Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52 , 54 ¶ 5, 392 P.3d 496, 498 (App. 2017), because the statute is “meant to certify that the action ... is not meritless,” Jilly v. Bayes, 221 Ariz. 40 , 43 ¶ 6, 209 P.3d 176, 179 (App. 2009). ¶ 11 We acknowledge, however, that another panel of this Court has held that a dismissal under A.R.S. § 12-2603 is for failure to prosecute. 2017A dismissal under AR.S. § 12-2603 is not a sanction for a discovery violation, but a substantive pleading failure, Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52 , 54 ¶ 5, 392 P.3d 496, 498 (App. 2017), because the statute is “meant to certify that the action ... is not meritless,” Jilly v. Bayes, 221 Ariz. 40 , 43 ¶ 6, 209 P.3d 176, 179 (App. 2009). ¶ 11 We acknowledge, however, that another panel of this Court has held that a dismissal under A.R.S. § 12-2603 is for failure to prosecute. | 2 | 2 |
Taylor v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 | 1 | 2 |
Gorney v. Meaneygreen2 sentences2017See also Gorney v. Meaney, 214 Ariz. 226, 228, ¶ 4 , 150 P.3d 799, 801 (App. 2007) (court of appeals reviewed de novo trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant on the basis that plaintiffs expert opinion affidavit did not conform with A.R.S. § 12-2603(B)). ¶ 6 Athough Boswell argues the superior court erred by dismissing his complaint because the court erroneously concluded that he failed to serve his initial disclosure statement, we reject this argument because the court properly dismissed based on Boswell’s failure to serve the preliminary expert affidavit required by AR.S. § 12-2 2017See also Gorney v. Meaney, 214 Ariz. 226, 228, ¶ 4 , 150 P.3d 799, 801 (App. 2007) (court of appeals reviewed de novo trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant on the basis that plaintiffs expert opinion affidavit did not conform with A.R.S. § 12-2603(B)). ¶ 6 Athough Boswell argues the superior court erred by dismissing his complaint because the court erroneously concluded that he failed to serve his initial disclosure statement, we reject this argument because the court properly dismissed based on Boswell’s failure to serve the preliminary expert affidavit required by AR.S. § 12-2 | 1 | 1 |
Boswell v. Fintelmanngreen2 sentences2017A dismissal under AR.S. § 12-2603 is not a sanction for a discovery violation, but a substantive pleading failure, Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52 , 54 ¶ 5, 392 P.3d 496, 498 (App. 2017), because the statute is “meant to certify that the action ... is not meritless,” Jilly v. Bayes, 221 Ariz. 40 , 43 ¶ 6, 209 P.3d 176, 179 (App. 2009). ¶ 11 We acknowledge, however, that another panel of this Court has held that a dismissal under A.R.S. § 12-2603 is for failure to prosecute. 2017A dismissal under AR.S. § 12-2603 is not a sanction for a discovery violation, but a substantive pleading failure, Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52 , 54 ¶ 5, 392 P.3d 496, 498 (App. 2017), because the statute is “meant to certify that the action ... is not meritless,” Jilly v. Bayes, 221 Ariz. 40 , 43 ¶ 6, 209 P.3d 176, 179 (App. 2009). ¶ 11 We acknowledge, however, that another panel of this Court has held that a dismissal under A.R.S. § 12-2603 is for failure to prosecute. | 1 | 1 |
Passmore v. McCarvergreen2 sentences2017See Passmore v. McCarver, 1 CA-CV 15-0420, 242 Ariz. 288 , 395 P.3d 297, 300-01 , 2017 WL 1279028 at *2 ¶8 (Ariz. App. Apr. 6, 2017). 2017See Passmore v. McCarver, 1 CA-CV 15-0420, 242 Ariz. 288 , 395 P.3d 297, 300-01 , 2017 WL 1279028 at *2 ¶8 (Ariz. App. Apr. 6, 2017). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hamptongreen2 sentences2014State v. Hampton, 213 Ariz. 167 , 177-78 ¶¶ 43-14, 140 P.3d 950, 960-61 (2006) (upholding the preclusion of mitigation testimony when defendant refused to submit to State’s mental health evaluation); accord People v. Hayes, 421 Mich. 271 , 364 N.W.2d 635, 639-41 (1984). 2014State v. Hampton, 213 Ariz. 167 , 177-78 ¶¶ 43-14, 140 P.3d 950, 960-61 (2006) (upholding the preclusion of mitigation testimony when defendant refused to submit to State’s mental health evaluation); accord People v. Hayes, 421 Mich. 271 , 364 N.W.2d 635, 639-41 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2014State v. Hampton, 213 Ariz. 167 , 177-78 ¶¶ 43-14, 140 P.3d 950, 960-61 (2006) (upholding the preclusion of mitigation testimony when defendant refused to submit to State’s mental health evaluation); accord People v. Hayes, 421 Mich. 271 , 364 N.W.2d 635, 639-41 (1984). 2014State v. Hampton, 213 Ariz. 167 , 177-78 ¶¶ 43-14, 140 P.3d 950, 960-61 (2006) (upholding the preclusion of mitigation testimony when defendant refused to submit to State’s mental health evaluation); accord People v. Hayes, 421 Mich. 271 , 364 N.W.2d 635, 639-41 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Lockett v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoskinsgreen2 sentences2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 | 1 | 1 |
Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd.green2 sentences2012State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, 576, ¶ 48 , 161 P.3d 608, 619 (App.2007); Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., 160 Ariz. 302, 306 , 772 P.2d 1155, 1159 (App.1989) (finding court abused its discretion in failing to set aside a default judgment entered as a sanction for a discovery violation without holding evidentiary hearing on fault). 2012State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, 576, ¶ 48 , 161 P.3d 608, 619 (App.2007); Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., 160 Ariz. 302, 306 , 772 P.2d 1155, 1159 (App.1989) (finding court abused its discretion in failing to set aside a default judgment entered as a sanction for a discovery violation without holding evidentiary hearing on fault). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wassenaargreen2 sentences2012State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, 576, ¶ 48 , 161 P.3d 608, 619 (App.2007); Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., 160 Ariz. 302, 306 , 772 P.2d 1155, 1159 (App.1989) (finding court abused its discretion in failing to set aside a default judgment entered as a sanction for a discovery violation without holding evidentiary hearing on fault). 2012State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, 576, ¶ 48 , 161 P.3d 608, 619 (App.2007); Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., 160 Ariz. 302, 306 , 772 P.2d 1155, 1159 (App.1989) (finding court abused its discretion in failing to set aside a default judgment entered as a sanction for a discovery violation without holding evidentiary hearing on fault). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 | 2 | 1995–2014 |
State v. Roque
green
1 sentence2015Id. ¶10 Rule 15.7 provides as follows: a. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson
green
1 sentence2014See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 , 147 ¶ 86, 14 P.3d 997, 1017 (2000). ¶ 55 Although that general proposition is correct, in exercising the right to present witnesses, a defendant must “‘comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 411 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)). ¶ 5 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hill v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1995State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 325 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1387 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 268 , 126 L.Ed.2d 219 (1993). 1. 1995State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 325 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1387 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 268 , 126 L.Ed.2d 219 (1993). 1. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences1995State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 325 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1387 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 268 , 126 L.Ed.2d 219 (1993). 1. 1995State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 325 , 848 P.2d 1375, 1387 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 268 , 126 L.Ed.2d 219 (1993). 1. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.