5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohengreen2 sentences2012See State v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497, 498 , 844 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1992) (finding Pinkerton doctrine of co-conspirator liability invalid under state law); Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-48 , 66 S.Ct. 1180 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). 7 . 2012See State v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497, 498 , 844 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1992) (finding Pinkerton doctrine of co-conspirator liability invalid under state law); Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-48 , 66 S.Ct. 1180 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). 7 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences1992The court of appeals applied the Pinkerton doctrine, without comment, in State v. Garcia, 117 Ariz. 67, 69 , 570 P.2d 1080, 1082 (App.1977), a case decided before October 1, 1978, the effective date of the current criminal code. 1992The court of appeals applied the Pinkerton doctrine, without comment, in State v. Garcia, 117 Ariz. 67, 69 , 570 P.2d 1080, 1082 (App.1977), a case decided before October 1, 1978, the effective date of the current criminal code. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Verivegreen2 sentences1992That court also mentioned the doctrine, in dicta, in State v. Verive, 128 Ariz. 570, 580-81 , 627 P.2d 721, 731-32 (App.1981) and, in a later case, upheld the propriety of instructing the jury *499 on the doctrine in the face of a claim that it constituted a comment on the evidence. 1992That court also mentioned the doctrine, in dicta, in State v. Verive, 128 Ariz. 570, 580-81 , 627 P.2d 721, 731-32 (App.1981) and, in a later case, upheld the propriety of instructing the jury *499 on the doctrine in the face of a claim that it constituted a comment on the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pinkerton v. United States
green
2 sentences2012See State v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497, 498 , 844 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1992) (finding Pinkerton doctrine of co-conspirator liability invalid under state law); Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-48 , 66 S.Ct. 1180 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). 7 . 2012See State v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497, 498 , 844 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1992) (finding Pinkerton doctrine of co-conspirator liability invalid under state law); Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-48 , 66 S.Ct. 1180 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). 7 . | 3 | 1991–2012 |
State v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1992The reasons for the trial court’s order are set forth in the margin. 1 The state argued that the trial court’s ruling was based on a rejection of the Pinkerton doctrine of vicarious liability under which Cohen could be held liable for the substantive crimes of his co-conspirators even though he did not participate in those crimes. 169 Ariz. at 553 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.