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 1 courts 1981–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kilkenny v. Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence2024Comm’n, 15 Ariz. App. 571, 573 (App. 1971). ¶26 White requests that this court “reevaluate” the medical evidence, characterizing Dr. Waldrop and Dr. Glass as “biased.” Dr. Waldrop, he alleges, runs “a 1 star rated business with horrifying reviews,” and his IME, which lasted “a mere 11 minutes,” resulted in a “questionable assessment[].” By contrast, White argues, Dr. Whallon’s “diagnosis of [r]adiculopathy” was supported by “a comprehensive array of MRI scans” 6 WHITE v. BH AUTOMOTIVE/BH AUTOMOTIVE Decision of the Court which were “seemingly overlooked or downplayed.” According to White, the A | 1 | 1 |
Kaibab Industries v. Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence2024Kaibab Indus., 196 Ariz. at 608, ¶ 21 . | 1 | 1 |
Oregon v. Elstadgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 306–07 & n.1 (1985) (observing that the “Miranda exclusionary rule . . . sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself” by “requiring suppression of all unwarned statements,” even if voluntary). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dixongreen1 sentence2022After jury selection, the superior court held an evidentiary hearing on White’s motion and denied it. ¶9 We review the superior court’s denial of a request for continuance for a “clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Dixon, 226 Ariz. 545, 555, ¶ 53 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coatsgreen1 sentence2022See generally Coats, 165 Ariz. at 157–58 (discussing good faith exception under A.R.S. § 13-3925, Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 8, and U.S. Const. amends. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Aldanagreen1 sentence2022We assume, for purposes of our analysis, that White intended to refer to the post-Miranda statement made at the hospital and that references to the police station were unintentional. 5 STATE v. WHITE Decision of the Court decision under Miranda, and we must affirm that decision if it is “legally correct for any reason supported by the record.” State v. Moreno, 236 Ariz. 347, 350, ¶ 5 (App. 2014). ¶19 “To comply with the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, Miranda requires the police to warn suspects who are in custody of their rights before initiating questioning.” State v. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ramiro Morenogreen1 sentence2022We assume, for purposes of our analysis, that White intended to refer to the post-Miranda statement made at the hospital and that references to the police station were unintentional. 5 STATE v. WHITE Decision of the Court decision under Miranda, and we must affirm that decision if it is “legally correct for any reason supported by the record.” State v. Moreno, 236 Ariz. 347, 350, ¶ 5 (App. 2014). ¶19 “To comply with the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, Miranda requires the police to warn suspects who are in custody of their rights before initiating questioning.” State v. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burnsgreen1 sentence2022“We will not find that a trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance unless the defendant shows prejudice.” State v. Burns, 237 Ariz. 1, 11, ¶ 10 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
General Electric Co. v. Joinergreen1 sentence2021See Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 (court not required to admit expert opinion solely on expert’s assurance of reliability). ¶23 Given the record, the court was well within its discretion to conclude that a fundamental step in White’s analysis was unreliable, thereby rendering his opinion on Wakefield’s damages inadmissible. | 1 | 1 |
Rolf Kaestel v. A.L. Lockhart, Director of the Arkansas Department of Correctiongreen2 sentences1990See Kaestel v. Lockhart, 746 F.2d 1323, 1325 (8th Cir.1984). 1990See Kaestel v. Lockhart, 746 F.2d 1323, 1325 (8th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Bounds v. Smithred2 sentences1990Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 , 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498 , 52 L.Ed.2d 72, 83 (1977). 1990Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 , 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498 , 52 L.Ed.2d 72, 83 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation
green
1 sentence2021In re Paoli, 35 F.3d at 745 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Randy Karl Gometz v. Gary L. Henman, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois
green
2 sentences1990Finally, the claim was brought not by the client prisoner, but by the jailhouse lawyer, whose standing the court questioned. 807 F.2d at 115 . 1990Finally, the claim was brought not by the client prisoner, but by the jailhouse lawyer, whose standing the court questioned. 807 F.2d at 115 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. White
green
2 sentences1981State v. White, 118 Ariz. 47 , 574 P.2d 840 (App. 1977). 1981State v. White, 118 Ariz. 47 , 574 P.2d 840 (App. 1977). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.