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 1984–2018 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. Roscoegreen1 sentence2018“The similarity requirement is usually more stringent where evidence of [another] . . . act is used to prove identity than where such evidence is offered to prove emotional propensity or state of mind.” State v. Roscoe (Roscoe I), 145 Ariz. 212, 216 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tankersleygreen1 sentence2018“Although the details need not be identical, there must be similarities between important aspects where one would normally expect to find difference.” State v. Tankersley, 191 Ariz. 359, 369 (1998) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Machado, 226 Ariz. 281 , 284 ¶ 17 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leslie B. Rigginsgreen1 sentence1995“Relevant evidence is not to be excluded because it fails to meet a similarity requirement.” United States v. Riggins, 539 F.2d 682, 683 (9th Cir.1976). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Brandongreen2 sentences1994See In re Brandon, 55 N.Y.2d 206 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 436, 439 , 433 N.E.2d 501, 504 (1982) (noting the failure of some courts to distinguish between the weak similarity requirement of the intent exception from the strong similarity requirement of the common plan exception). 1994See In re Brandon, 55 N.Y.2d 206 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 436, 439 , 433 N.E.2d 501, 504 (1982) (noting the failure of some courts to distinguish between the weak similarity requirement of the intent exception from the strong similarity requirement of the common plan exception). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Larry Allen Myersgreen1 sentence1984United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1045 (5th Cir.1977). | 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 v. MacHado
green
1 sentence2018“Although the details need not be identical, there must be similarities between important aspects where one would normally expect to find difference.” State v. Tankersley, 191 Ariz. 359, 369 (1998) abrogated on other grounds by State v. Machado, 226 Ariz. 281 , 284 ¶ 17 (2011). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011In Flory v. Silver-crest Indus., 130 Ariz. 15 , 633 P.2d 424 (App. 1980), the court held that the trial court had not erred by instructing the jury regarding a non-pled consumer fraud claim because the defendant’s claimed surprise was precluded given the similarity of the claim to that for common law fraud, which the parties tried to the jury. 2011In Flory v. Silver-crest Indus., 130 Ariz. 15 , 633 P.2d 424 (App. 1980), the court held that the trial court had not erred by instructing the jury regarding a non-pled consumer fraud claim because the defendant’s claimed surprise was precluded given the similarity of the claim to that for common law fraud, which the parties tried to the jury. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.