5 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliottgreen2 sentences2021See A.R.S. § 25-320 app. § 20(A); see also A.R.S. § 25- 320(D); Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128 , 131 n.1 (App. 1990). 2019See Elliott, 165 Ariz. at 135 n.1 (noting that § 25-319 only requires the court to consider the factors, not make specific findings). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Aguilargreen2 sentences2017See Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, ¶ 26 , 97 P.3d at 873 . 2017See Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, ¶ 26 , 97 P.3d at 873 . | 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. Meek
green
2 sentences1975While it is within the power of this Court to consider and rule upon the constitutionality of a rule adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, see State v. Meek, 9 Ariz.App. 149 , 450 P.2d 115 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 847 , 90 S.Ct. 73 , 24 L.Ed.2d 98 (1969), we choose not to base our holding that appeal is still available to review probation revocation proceedings upon any theory that the denial of such appeal would be a violation of the provisions of Art. 2, § 24, of the Arizona Constitution. 1975While it is within the power of this Court to consider and rule upon the constitutionality of a rule adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, see State v. Meek, 9 Ariz.App. 149 , 450 P.2d 115 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 847 , 90 S.Ct. 73 , 24 L.Ed.2d 98 (1969), we choose not to base our holding that appeal is still available to review probation revocation proceedings upon any theory that the denial of such appeal would be a violation of the provisions of Art. 2, § 24, of the Arizona Constitution. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Tennessee Valley Sand & Gravel Co. v. Crafton
green
1 sentence1975While it is within the power of this Court to consider and rule upon the constitutionality of a rule adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, see State v. Meek, 9 Ariz.App. 149 , 450 P.2d 115 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 847 , 90 S.Ct. 73 , 24 L.Ed.2d 98 (1969), we choose not to base our holding that appeal is still available to review probation revocation proceedings upon any theory that the denial of such appeal would be a violation of the provisions of Art. 2, § 24, of the Arizona Constitution. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Powell v. National Savings & Trust Co.
neutral
1 sentence1975While it is within the power of this Court to consider and rule upon the constitutionality of a rule adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, see State v. Meek, 9 Ariz.App. 149 , 450 P.2d 115 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 847 , 90 S.Ct. 73 , 24 L.Ed.2d 98 (1969), we choose not to base our holding that appeal is still available to review probation revocation proceedings upon any theory that the denial of such appeal would be a violation of the provisions of Art. 2, § 24, of the Arizona Constitution. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Henderson v. Pryor
neutral
1 sentence1975While it is within the power of this Court to consider and rule upon the constitutionality of a rule adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, see State v. Meek, 9 Ariz.App. 149 , 450 P.2d 115 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 847 , 90 S.Ct. 73 , 24 L.Ed.2d 98 (1969), we choose not to base our holding that appeal is still available to review probation revocation proceedings upon any theory that the denial of such appeal would be a violation of the provisions of Art. 2, § 24, of the Arizona Constitution. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.