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 1 courts 1982–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp.green1 sentence2024See Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134, 137 , ¶ 7 n.2 (App. 2011) (noting appellate court’s discretionary authority to consider the merits of deficient briefs). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Biggergreen1 sentence2024Bigger, 251 Ariz. at 407-08, ¶ 10 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeligreen1 sentence2023See State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 180, ¶ 5 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Christina G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
1 sentence2022We find again that this deficiency is a waiver of the challenge, Christina G., 227 Ariz. at 234 ¶ 14 n.6, and no abuse of discretion by the trial court is evident. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences1982Co., 70 Wash.2d 587 , 424 P.2d 648 (1967), for this conclusion, which suffers from the same deficiency in analysis. 1982Co., 70 Wash.2d 587 , 424 P.2d 648 (1967), for this conclusion, which suffers from the same deficiency in analysis. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.