6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
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 |
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 |
Herzberg v. Whitegreen1 sentence2022See Herzberg, 49 Ariz. at 321–22. | 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 STATE v. FREEMAN Decision of the Court 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 |
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.