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 1988–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Northern Arizona Supply Co. v. Stinsongreen1 sentence2021N. Ariz. Supply Co. v. Stinson, 73 Ariz. 109, 112-13 (1951); see Anderson Aviation Sales Co. v. Perez, 19 Ariz. App. 422, 428 (1973) (finding answer on cross-examination that included insurance when discussing circumstances in which the witness would rent aircraft did not constitute grounds for mistrial). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perezgreen1 sentence2021N. Ariz. Supply Co. v. Stinson, 73 Ariz. 109, 112-13 (1951); see Anderson Aviation Sales Co. v. Perez, 19 Ariz. App. 422, 428 (1973) (finding answer on cross-examination that included insurance when discussing circumstances in which the witness would rent aircraft did not constitute grounds for mistrial). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Newellgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, 403, ¶ 68 (2006) ("We presume that the jurors followed the court's instructions."). | 1 | 1 |
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovelgreen2 sentences1988See Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, 149 Ariz. 442, 450 , 719 P.2d 1058, 1066 (1986). 1988See Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, 149 Ariz. 442, 450 , 719 P.2d 1058, 1066 (1986). | 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 of Arizona v. Mark Haskie, Jr.
green
1 sentence2017Finally, as instructed by our supreme court, see Haskie, 399 P.3d at ___ , ¶ 26, the court gave the jury a limiting instruction explaining the narrow purpose and scope of Dr. Dutton’s testimony. ¶15 On this record, Dr. Dutton’s testimony did not constitute impermissible offender profiling, and accordingly, the court did not err, much less fundamentally err to Garcia’s prejudice, in admitting it. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Abel
green
2 sentences1998United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 51-52 , 105 S.Ct. 465 , 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984). ¶24 The defendant adds that the trial court fundamentally erred in failing to give the jury a limiting instruction regarding the proper use of R.A’s testimony, although such an instruction was not requested. 1998United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 51-52 , 105 S.Ct. 465 , 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984). ¶24 The defendant adds that the trial court fundamentally erred in failing to give the jury a limiting instruction regarding the proper use of R.A’s testimony, although such an instruction was not requested. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.