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 1990–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cromwellgreen2 sentences2018In ruling on a substitution of counsel request, the court considers factors including “whether an irreconcilable conflict exists . . . whether new counsel would be confronted with the same conflict; the timing of the motion; inconvenience to witnesses; the time period already elapsed between the alleged offense and trial; the proclivity of the defendant to change counsel; and quality of counsel.” Id. (quoting State v. LaGrand, 152 Ariz. 483 , 486–87 (1987)). 2016In ruling on a request for substitute counsel, a trial court considers factors such as “whether an irreconcilable conflict exists . . . whether new counsel would be confronted with the same conflict; the timing of the motion; inconvenience to witnesses; the time period already elapsed between the alleged offense and trial; the proclivity of the defendant to change counsel; and quality of counsel.” Id. at 187, ¶ 31 . | 1 | 2 |
FLYING DIAMOND AIRPACK, LLC v. Meienberggreen1 sentence2023Flying Diamond Airpark, LLC v. Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 44, 50, ¶ 27 (App. 2007). ¶13 In determining whether a parent has rebutted this presumption, and thus may be granted legal decision-making authority, the court considers the factors set forth in A.R.S. § 25-403.03(E). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandezgreen1 sentence2018To demonstrate irreconcilable conflict, “the defendant must present evidence of a ‘severe and pervasive conflict with the attorney or evidence that he had such minimal contact with the attorney that meaningful communication was not possible.’” State v. Hernandez, 232 Ariz. 313, 318, ¶ 15 (2013). 4 STATE v. FRANCOIS Decision of the Court ¶10 At the time Francois requested substitute counsel, defense counsel informed the court he could effectively 3 represent Francois, stating: [W]e haven’t had too many issues and we’ve been able to communicate and we’ve talked at length about his cases and what | 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. LaGrand
green
1 sentence2018In ruling on a substitution of counsel request, the court considers factors including “whether an irreconcilable conflict exists . . . whether new counsel would be confronted with the same conflict; the timing of the motion; inconvenience to witnesses; the time period already elapsed between the alleged offense and trial; the proclivity of the defendant to change counsel; and quality of counsel.” Id. (quoting State v. LaGrand, 152 Ariz. 483 , 486–87 (1987)). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ruth v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Gorman v. City of Phoenix
green
2 sentences1990Where the case will be dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule V(e), the court also considers the factors set forth in Gorman : (1) vigorous pursuit of the case, (2) steps taken to inform the court of the case’s status, and (3) prejudice to the moving party, such as the running of the statute of limitations. 152 Ariz. at 183 , 731 P.2d at 78 . 1990Where the case will be dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule V(e), the court also considers the factors set forth in Gorman : (1) vigorous pursuit of the case, (2) steps taken to inform the court of the case’s status, and (3) prejudice to the moving party, such as the running of the statute of limitations. 152 Ariz. at 183 , 731 P.2d at 78 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.