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 1984–2012 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 v. Morangreen2 sentences1996Rule 801(d)(1)(A) creates a broad exception to the hearsay rule for prior inconsistent statements. 3 The rationale underlying this rule is that the jury should be allowed to hear the conflicting statements and decide “which story represents the truth in the light of all the facts, such as the demean- or of the witness, the matter brought out on his direct and cross-examination, and the testimony of others.” State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 373, 375 , 728 P.2d 243, 245 (App.1985) (citing Edmund M. 1996Rule 801(d)(1)(A) creates a broad exception to the hearsay rule for prior inconsistent statements. 3 The rationale underlying this rule is that the jury should be allowed to hear the conflicting statements and decide “which story represents the truth in the light of all the facts, such as the demean- or of the witness, the matter brought out on his direct and cross-examination, and the testimony of others.” State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 373, 375 , 728 P.2d 243, 245 (App.1985) (citing Edmund M. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences1992The rationale underlying the rule’s prohibition against introducing evidence of a defendant’s prior conviction is that “[t]he effect of information of a prior conviction is to create in the minds of the jury an impression that the defendant’s character is bad____” State v. Martinez, 109 Ariz. 303, 304 , 508 P.2d 1165, 1166 (1973). 1992The rationale underlying the rule’s prohibition against introducing evidence of a defendant’s prior conviction is that “[t]he effect of information of a prior conviction is to create in the minds of the jury an impression that the defendant’s character is bad____” State v. Martinez, 109 Ariz. 303, 304 , 508 P.2d 1165, 1166 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Harkergreen2 sentences1984Before we answer this question, we must first state that we agree with the statement in Woods v. Harker, 22 Ariz. App. 83, 85 , 523 P.2d 1320, 1322 (1974), that the actor must be aware of the sudden peril or the rationale underlying the rule is not served. 1984Before we answer this question, we must first state that we agree with the statement in Woods v. Harker, 22 Ariz. App. 83, 85 , 523 P.2d 1320, 1322 (1974), that the actor must be aware of the sudden peril or the rationale underlying the rule is not served. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shumsky v. Eisenstein
green
2 sentences2012Shumsky, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365 , 750 N.E.2d at 70 . ¶ 19 Arizona courts have not squarely addressed the applicability of the continuous representation doctrine. 2012Shumsky, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365 , 750 N.E.2d at 70 . ¶ 19 Arizona courts have not squarely addressed the applicability of the continuous representation doctrine. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1992Given the rationale underlying the rule that practitioners will seek and patients will give reliable information to further necessary treatment, Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 199 , 735 P.2d at 809 , the certification status of the practitioner is irrelevant. 1992Given the rationale underlying the rule that practitioners will seek and patients will give reliable information to further necessary treatment, Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 199 , 735 P.2d at 809 , the certification status of the practitioner is irrelevant. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.