6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 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 v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2024A court should also reject a defendant’s request if the motion for self-representation “was made for the purpose of delay.” State v. Thompson, 190 Ariz. 555, 557 (App. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2024If the request is deemed untimely, a court should consider the factors outlined in De Nistor: “[1] the reasons for the defendant’s request, [2] the quality of counsel, [3] the defendant’s proclivity to substitute counsel, and [4] the disruption and delay expected in the proceedings if the request were to be granted.” De Nistor, 143 Ariz. at 413 (quoting People v. Barnes, 636 P.2d 1323, 1325 (Colo. App. 1981)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Andre M.green1 sentence2019Andre M., 207 Ariz. at 485, ¶ 11 ; Jimenez, 165 Ariz. at 449 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zieglergreen2 sentences2010Further, as we explain in ¶ 24, the court should consider these factors in light of the purpose of restitution and- the legislature’s intent in enacting A.R.S. § 13-805. ¶ 18 In Wisconsin v. Ziegler, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a judgment setting the amount of restitution because the judgment was entered, in violation of various statutory deadlines, 14 year’s after restitution was originally ordered. 280 Wis.2d 860 , 695 N.W.2d 895, 901, ¶ 20 (App.2005). 2010Further, as we explain in ¶ 24, the court should consider these factors in light of the purpose of restitution and- the legislature’s intent in enacting A.R.S. § 13-805. ¶ 18 In Wisconsin v. Ziegler, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a judgment setting the amount of restitution because the judgment was entered, in violation of various statutory deadlines, 14 year’s after restitution was originally ordered. 280 Wis.2d 860 , 695 N.W.2d 895, 901, ¶ 20 (App.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resourcesgreen1 sentence2009See id. at 540, ¶ 36, 73 P.3d at 1275 (“[0]ther relevant factors that could be implicated in a decision to award fees, includ[e], without limitation, the quality of the representation and the difficulty of the work ... [and] the court should consider those factors in light of the policy of AR.S. § 12-348 itself.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences1991State v. Allen, 157 Ariz. 165, 174 , 755 P.2d 1153, 1162 (1988); Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 201-02 , 735 P.2d at 811-12 . 1991State v. Allen, 157 Ariz. 165, 174 , 755 P.2d 1153, 1162 (1988); Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 201-02 , 735 P.2d at 811-12 . | 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 v. De Nistor
green
1 sentence2024If the request is deemed untimely, a court should consider the factors outlined in De Nistor: “[1] the reasons for the defendant’s request, [2] the quality of counsel, [3] the defendant’s proclivity to substitute counsel, and [4] the disruption and delay expected in the proceedings if the request were to be granted.” De Nistor, 143 Ariz. at 413 (quoting People v. Barnes, 636 P.2d 1323, 1325 (Colo. App. 1981)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jimenez
green
1 sentence2019Andre M., 207 Ariz. at 485, ¶ 11 ; Jimenez, 165 Ariz. at 449 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Marquez v. Ortega
green
1 sentence2014In making this determination, a court should consider factors such as: “(1) the reason for the failure to properly disclose evidence; (2) the willfulness or inadvertence of a party’s (or attorney’s) conduct; (3) prejudice to either side that may result from excluding or allowing the evidence; (4) the opposing party’s (or attorney’s) action or inaction in attempting to resolve the dispute short of exclusion; and (5) the overall diligence with which a case has been prosecuted.” Id. (citing Allstate, 182 Ariz. at 288 , 896 P.2d at 258 ). ¶22 In this case, the delay by Mrs. Namvar in obtaining the | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole
green
2 sentences2014In making this determination, a court should consider factors such as: “(1) the reason for the failure to properly disclose evidence; (2) the willfulness or inadvertence of a party’s (or attorney’s) conduct; (3) prejudice to either side that may result from excluding or allowing the evidence; (4) the opposing party’s (or attorney’s) action or inaction in attempting to resolve the dispute short of exclusion; and (5) the overall diligence with which a case has been prosecuted.” Id. (citing Allstate, 182 Ariz. at 288 , 896 P.2d at 258 ). ¶22 In this case, the delay by Mrs. Namvar in obtaining the 2014In making this determination, a court should consider factors such as: “(1) the reason for the failure to properly disclose evidence; (2) the willfulness or inadvertence of a party’s (or attorney’s) conduct; (3) prejudice to either side that may result from excluding or allowing the evidence; (4) the opposing party’s (or attorney’s) action or inaction in attempting to resolve the dispute short of exclusion; and (5) the overall diligence with which a case has been prosecuted.” Id. (citing Allstate, 182 Ariz. at 288 , 896 P.2d at 258 ). ¶22 In this case, the delay by Mrs. Namvar in obtaining the | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1991State v. Allen, 157 Ariz. 165, 174 , 755 P.2d 1153, 1162 (1988); Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 201-02 , 735 P.2d at 811-12 . 1991State v. Allen, 157 Ariz. 165, 174 , 755 P.2d 1153, 1162 (1988); Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 201-02 , 735 P.2d at 811-12 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.