5 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shawanee S. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences2020Shawanee S., 234 Ariz. at 178, ¶ 14 . ¶16 Mother argues DCS should have done more to assist her in obtaining appropriate housing and additional mental-health services. 2020Shawanee S., 234 Ariz. at 178, ¶ 14 . ¶16 On appeal, Father argues DCS should have done more to locate the parents when they moved out-of-state, and both Mother and Father suggest DCS should have re-referred them for parenting classes and drug testing. | 3 | 3 |
Rita J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen1 sentence2020Sec., 196 Ariz. 512, 515, ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (stating that even if an order entered after a permanency planning hearing was appealable, the appeal would essentially be rendered moot due to a later order terminating parental rights); see also Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 617, ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“[W]e will dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cardoso v. Soldogreen1 sentence2020Sec., 196 Ariz. 512, 515, ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (stating that even if an order entered after a permanency planning hearing was appealable, the appeal would essentially be rendered moot due to a later order terminating parental rights); see also Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 617, ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“[W]e will dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.”). | 1 | 1 |
Weigle v. Devon T.green1 sentence1991Id. at 174. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.