6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Savagegreen2 sentences1983See also State v. Savage, 117 Ariz. 535 , 573 P.2d 1388 (1978) (applying five day mail rule to notices left in box in Superior Court Clerk’s Office). 1983See also State v. Savage, 117 Ariz. 535 , 573 P.2d 1388 (1978) (applying five day mail rule to notices left in box in Superior Court Clerk’s Office). | 2 | 2 |
Dioguardi v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2005Id. at 418, 909 P.2d at 485 . 1999See Dioguardi, 184 Ariz. at 418 , 909 P.2d at 485 . . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2013Jackson, 184 Ariz. at 300-01 , 908 P.2d at 1085-86 . 2013Jackson, 184 Ariz. at 300-01 , 908 P.2d at 1085-86 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Cozad
green
2 sentences2006Gozad, however, addressed whether the ten-day waiver provision in Rule 10.2(b) ran from the date counsel was aware which judge would be assigned, rather than from the date the judge “assumfed] the calendar.” 113 Ariz. at 438 , 556 P.2d at 313 . 2006Gozad, however, addressed whether the ten-day waiver provision in Rule 10.2(b) ran from the date counsel was aware which judge would be assigned, rather than from the date the judge “assumfed] the calendar.” 113 Ariz. at 438 , 556 P.2d at 313 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.