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 2007–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of L. A. v. Patelgreen2 sentences2017In a facial constitutional challenge, the party challenging the law must establish that it “is unconstitutional in all of its applications,” a standard the United States Supreme Court characterizes as “exacting.” City of Los Angeles v. Patel, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2443, 2451 , 192 L.Ed.2d 435 (2015). ¶ 8 Reviewing a state constitutional provision under the United States Constitution requires great care. 2017In a facial constitutional challenge, the party challenging the law must establish that it “is unconstitutional in all of its applications,” a standard the United States Supreme Court characterizes as “exacting.” City of Los Angeles v. Patel, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2443, 2451 , 192 L.Ed.2d 435 (2015). ¶ 8 Reviewing a state constitutional provision under the United States Constitution requires great care. | 1 | 2 |
Robinson v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Robinson v. City of Seattle, 102 Wash. App. 795 , 10 P.3d 452, 458 (2000). 2007See, e.g., Robinson v. City of Seattle, 102 Wash. App. 795 , 10 P.3d 452, 458 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Robinson v. City of Seattle, 102 Wash. App. 795 , 10 P.3d 452, 458 (2000). 2007See, e.g., Robinson v. City of Seattle, 102 Wash. App. 795 , 10 P.3d 452, 458 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. Lynch
green
2 sentences2025“A facial constitutional challenge requires an inquiry into whether the law itself is unconstitutional, not into whether the application of the law violates a particular individual’s rights.” Hernandez v. Lynch, 216 Ariz. 469 , 472 ¶ 8 (App. 2007). ¶11 “In interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions, we give words ’their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.’” Fann v. State, 251 Ariz. 425 , 434 ¶ 25 (2021) (quoting Ariz. ex rel. 2025“A facial constitutional challenge requires an inquiry into whether the law itself is unconstitutional, not into whether the application of the law violates a particular individual’s rights.” Hernandez v. Lynch, 216 Ariz. 469 , 472 ¶ 8 (App. 2007). ¶11 “In interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions, we give words ’their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.’” Fann v. State, 251 Ariz. 425 , 434 ¶ 25 (2021) (quoting Ariz. ex rel. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona
green
2 sentences2025“A facial constitutional challenge requires an inquiry into whether the law itself is unconstitutional, not into whether the application of the law violates a particular individual’s rights.” Hernandez v. Lynch, 216 Ariz. 469 , 472 ¶ 8 (App. 2007). ¶11 “In interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions, we give words ’their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.’” Fann v. State, 251 Ariz. 425 , 434 ¶ 25 (2021) (quoting Ariz. ex rel. 2025“A facial constitutional challenge requires an inquiry into whether the law itself is unconstitutional, not into whether the application of the law violates a particular individual’s rights.” Hernandez v. Lynch, 216 Ariz. 469 , 472 ¶ 8 (App. 2007). ¶11 “In interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions, we give words ’their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.’” Fann v. State, 251 Ariz. 425 , 434 ¶ 25 (2021) (quoting Ariz. ex rel. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.