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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2020 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. Herreragreen2 sentences2018Campbell timely petitioned for review. ¶5 “A petition for post-conviction relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” State v. Herrera, 183 Ariz. 642, 647 (App. 1995), and this Court reviews “a trial court’s factual findings for clear error,” id. at 648 . 2018Campbell timely petitioned for review. ¶5 “A petition for post-conviction relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” State v. Herrera, 183 Ariz. 642, 647 (App. 1995), and this Court reviews “a trial court’s factual findings for clear error,” id. at 648 . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Great American Insurancegreen1 sentence2003In Food for Health, the appellant had argued that the prior judgment could have no preclusive effect for collateral estoppel purposes because the parties reached a compromise while the case was pending appeal and stipulated to have the appeal dismissed with prejudice. 129 Ariz. at 106 , 628 *224 P.2d at 989. | 1 | 1 |
Nowak v. Nowakgreen2 sentences1987As stated by the Connecticut Supreme Court, “[b]ecause two complaints cannot coexist in the same action, the filing of a substituted or amended complaint must of necessity remove the original pleading from the file.” Nowak v. Nowak, 175 Conn. 112, 118 , 394 A.2d 716, 719 (1978). 1987As stated by the Connecticut Supreme Court, “[b]ecause two complaints cannot coexist in the same action, the filing of a substituted or amended complaint must of necessity remove the original pleading from the file.” Nowak v. Nowak, 175 Conn. 112, 118 , 394 A.2d 716, 719 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., 136 Ariz. 304 , 3 CAMPBELL v. MURPHY Decision of the Court 311 (1983). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. A
green
1 sentence2017We also reject Campbell’s claim that a “mistake of law” does not qualify under Rule 15(c) and clarify that a mistake—factual or legal—is cognizable under the Rule, if it is not “a deliberate choice to sue one party instead of another while fully understanding the factual and legal differences between the two parties.” Krupski, 560 U.S. at 549 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture
green
1 sentence2003In Food for Health, the appellant had argued that the prior judgment could have no preclusive effect for collateral estoppel purposes because the parties reached a compromise while the case was pending appeal and stipulated to have the appeal dismissed with prejudice. 129 Ariz. at 106 , 628 *224 P.2d at 989. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.