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 1969–1989 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. Snowdengreen2 sentences1989State v. Snowden, 138 Ariz. 402, 406 , 675 P.2d 289, 293 (1983). 1989State v. Snowden, 138 Ariz. 402, 406 , 675 P.2d 289, 293 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jessengreen2 sentences1981The test for reversible error is “whether there was a reasonable probability under such facts that the verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Jessen, 130 Ariz. 1 , 633 P.2d 410, 416 (1981); State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9 (1980). 1981The test for reversible error is “whether there was a reasonable probability under such facts that the verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Jessen, 130 Ariz. 1 , 633 P.2d 410, 416 (1981); State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9 (1980). | 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. Zaragoza
green
2 sentences1983State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63 , 659 P.2d 22 (1983). 1983State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63 , 659 P.2d 22 (1983). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences1981State v. Padilla, 122 Ariz. 378 , 595 P.2d 170 (1979); State v. Williams, 107 Ariz. 262 , 485 P.2d 832 (1971). 1981State v. Padilla, 122 Ariz. 378 , 595 P.2d 170 (1979); State v. Williams, 107 Ariz. 262 , 485 P.2d 832 (1971). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. McVay
green
2 sentences1981The test for reversible error is “whether there was a reasonable probability under such facts that the verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Jessen, 130 Ariz. 1 , 633 P.2d 410, 416 (1981); State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9 (1980). 1981The test for reversible error is “whether there was a reasonable probability under such facts that the verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Jessen, 130 Ariz. 1 , 633 P.2d 410, 416 (1981); State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Padilla
green
2 sentences1981State v. Padilla, 122 Ariz. 378 , 595 P.2d 170 (1979); State v. Williams, 107 Ariz. 262 , 485 P.2d 832 (1971). 1981State v. Padilla, 122 Ariz. 378 , 595 P.2d 170 (1979); State v. Williams, 107 Ariz. 262 , 485 P.2d 832 (1971). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Milton
green
2 sentences1969It is only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached that reversible error appears. * * * ” 85 Ariz. at p. 73 , 331 P.2d at p. 848 . 1969It is only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached that reversible error appears. * * * ” 85 Ariz. at p. 73 , 331 P.2d at p. 848 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.