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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ontiveros v. Borakgreen2 sentences2009Nor can an intervening cause be considered a superseding cause when the defendant’s conduct “increases the foreseeable risk of a particular harm occurring through ... a second actor.” Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 506 , 667 P.2d 200, 206 (1983). ¶ 12 The trial court refused to give the instruction, finding “it’s certainly foreseeable that you go down a relatively steep and long hill ... that there would be a canyon there, and ... that there would be water there.” The court found it was irrelevant whether the victim had gotten out of the truck on his own or been ejected, that Slover’s acti 2009Nor can an intervening cause be considered a superseding cause when the defendant’s conduct “increases the foreseeable risk of a particular harm occurring through ... a second actor.” Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 506 , 667 P.2d 200, 206 (1983). ¶ 12 The trial court refused to give the instruction, finding “it’s certainly foreseeable that you go down a relatively steep and long hill ... that there would be a canyon there, and ... that there would be water there.” The court found it was irrelevant whether the victim had gotten out of the truck on his own or been ejected, that Slover’s acti | 2 | 2 |
Rossell v. Volkswagen of Americagreen2 sentences2009State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, ¶¶ 12-13 , 12 P.3d 796, 801 (2000) (recognizing criminal standard for superseding cause same as civil); see also Rossell v. Volkswagen of Am., 147 Ariz. 160, 168 , 709 P.2d 517, 525 (1985) (defendant not liable only when intervening cause considered superseding cause). 2009State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, ¶¶ 12-13 , 12 P.3d 796, 801 (2000) (recognizing criminal standard for superseding cause same as civil); see also Rossell v. Volkswagen of Am., 147 Ariz. 160, 168 , 709 P.2d 517, 525 (1985) (defendant not liable only when intervening cause considered superseding cause). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bassgreen2 sentences2009State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, ¶¶ 12-13 , 12 P.3d 796, 801 (2000) (recognizing criminal standard for superseding cause same as civil); see also Rossell v. Volkswagen of Am., 147 Ariz. 160, 168 , 709 P.2d 517, 525 (1985) (defendant not liable only when intervening cause considered superseding cause). 2009State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, ¶¶ 12-13 , 12 P.3d 796, 801 (2000) (recognizing criminal standard for superseding cause same as civil); see also Rossell v. Volkswagen of Am., 147 Ariz. 160, 168 , 709 P.2d 517, 525 (1985) (defendant not liable only when intervening cause considered superseding cause). | 2 | 2 |
Herzberg v. Whitegreen1 sentence2022See Herzberg, 49 Ariz. at 321-22. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boltongreen1 sentence2022This Court has made clear that “[a] party is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.” State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Hon. aragon/max Fontesgreen2 sentences2022Quinonez also contends that, "[l]ike the trial court in Fontes, the court here must be given an opportunity to consider admissibility of this evidence for other purposes." ¶21 Fontes involved a special action in which the only issue was the superior court's pre-trial denial of the State's motion to preclude the defendant from raising a superseding cause defense. 505 P.3d at 659-60, ¶¶ 2 In his opening brief, Quinonez also argues that he suffered a concussion during his drive, before the accident, and that concussion served as an intervening, superseding cause of the victims' deaths which entit 2022Id. at 663, ¶ 22. ¶20 Following the decision in Fontes, Quinonez acknowledges he was not entitled to a superseding cause instruction.2 Quinonez argues, however, that evidence of the victim-driver's impairment and speed was admissible for other purposes and the superior court abused its discretion when it precluded that evidence solely on the basis that it did not support a superseding cause instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shumwaygreen1 sentence2021Causation ¶29 Freeman argues he was “entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence,” State v. Shumway, 8 137 Ariz. 585, 588 (1983), and the superior court erred when it did not sua sponte give a superseding cause instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassellgreen1 sentence2017State v. Vassell, 238 Ariz. 281, 284, ¶ 9 (App. 2015). ¶18 To the extent Sommerfield contends the victim’s medication use and/or failure to wear corrective lenses warranted a superseding cause instruction, we disagree. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vandevergreen2 sentences2014Standley v. Retrum, 170 Ariz. 399, 402 , 825 P.2d 20, 23 (App. 1991) (“inherent in the risk of vehicular injury is the prospect of an intervener’s negligent or reckless driving of a car”); State v. Vandever, 211 Ariz. 206, 208, ¶¶ 6, 8 , 119 P.3d 473, 475 (App. 2005) (in trial for endangerment from drunk driving, evidence victim was speeding did not warrant superseding cause instruction; victim’s negligent driving “was clearly a foreseeable event within the scope of the risk created” by the defendant’s reckless driving). 9 STATE v. HERSUM Decision of the Court ¶27 A superseding cause instructi 2014Standley v. Retrum, 170 Ariz. 399, 402 , 825 P.2d 20, 23 (App. 1991) (“inherent in the risk of vehicular injury is the prospect of an intervener’s negligent or reckless driving of a car”); State v. Vandever, 211 Ariz. 206, 208, ¶¶ 6, 8 , 119 P.3d 473, 475 (App. 2005) (in trial for endangerment from drunk driving, evidence victim was speeding did not warrant superseding cause instruction; victim’s negligent driving “was clearly a foreseeable event within the scope of the risk created” by the defendant’s reckless driving). 9 STATE v. HERSUM Decision of the Court ¶27 A superseding cause instructi | 1 | 1 |
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrumgreen2 sentences2014Standley v. Retrum, 170 Ariz. 399, 402 , 825 P.2d 20, 23 (App. 1991) (“inherent in the risk of vehicular injury is the prospect of an intervener’s negligent or reckless driving of a car”); State v. Vandever, 211 Ariz. 206, 208, ¶¶ 6, 8 , 119 P.3d 473, 475 (App. 2005) (in trial for endangerment from drunk driving, evidence victim was speeding did not warrant superseding cause instruction; victim’s negligent driving “was clearly a foreseeable event within the scope of the risk created” by the defendant’s reckless driving). 9 STATE v. HERSUM Decision of the Court ¶27 A superseding cause instructi 2014Standley v. Retrum, 170 Ariz. 399, 402 , 825 P.2d 20, 23 (App. 1991) (“inherent in the risk of vehicular injury is the prospect of an intervener’s negligent or reckless driving of a car”); State v. Vandever, 211 Ariz. 206, 208, ¶¶ 6, 8 , 119 P.3d 473, 475 (App. 2005) (in trial for endangerment from drunk driving, evidence victim was speeding did not warrant superseding cause instruction; victim’s negligent driving “was clearly a foreseeable event within the scope of the risk created” by the defendant’s reckless driving). 9 STATE v. HERSUM Decision of the Court ¶27 A superseding cause instructi | 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. Slover
green
2 sentences2022That Shelby’s conduct increased that risk does not entitle Fontes to a superseding-cause instruction.” Id. at 576 ¶ 9. ¶5 We granted review to determine whether the court of appeals erred by accepting special action jurisdiction and by precluding a superseding cause defense instruction for Fontes. 2022That Shelby’s conduct increased that risk does not entitle Fontes to a superseding-cause instruction.” Id. at 576 ¶ 9. ¶5 We granted review to determine whether the court of appeals erred by accepting special action jurisdiction and by precluding a superseding cause defense instruction for Fontes. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.