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 1968–2026 1 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. Biblegreen1 sentence2026State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 573 (1993); State v. Molina, 211 Ariz. 130, 134, ¶ 15 (App. 2005). ¶11 Gastelum suggests we should review any error in not striking Juror 33 for structural error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Molinagreen1 sentence2026State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 573 (1993); State v. Molina, 211 Ariz. 130, 134, ¶ 15 (App. 2005). ¶11 Gastelum suggests we should review any error in not striking Juror 33 for structural error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kangasgreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Kangas, 146 Ariz. 155, 157 , 704 P.2d 285, 287 (App.1985) ("ordinarily a defendant should be required to seek appellate special action review when he disagrees with the ruling that a dismissal is without prejudice"). ¶ 24 We are aware that our supreme court has rejected the requirement that all speedy trial issues should be brought by special action; however, it has also acknowledged that "a special action on speedy trial issues promotes judicial economy." Tucker, 133 Ariz. at 306 , 651 P.2d at 361 . 1998See, e.g., State v. Kangas, 146 Ariz. 155, 157 , 704 P.2d 285, 287 (App.1985) ("ordinarily a defendant should be required to seek appellate special action review when he disagrees with the ruling that a dismissal is without prejudice"). ¶ 24 We are aware that our supreme court has rejected the requirement that all speedy trial issues should be brought by special action; however, it has also acknowledged that "a special action on speedy trial issues promotes judicial economy." Tucker, 133 Ariz. at 306 , 651 P.2d at 361 . | 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. Tucker
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Kangas, 146 Ariz. 155, 157 , 704 P.2d 285, 287 (App.1985) ("ordinarily a defendant should be required to seek appellate special action review when he disagrees with the ruling that a dismissal is without prejudice"). ¶ 24 We are aware that our supreme court has rejected the requirement that all speedy trial issues should be brought by special action; however, it has also acknowledged that "a special action on speedy trial issues promotes judicial economy." Tucker, 133 Ariz. at 306 , 651 P.2d at 361 . 1998See, e.g., State v. Kangas, 146 Ariz. 155, 157 , 704 P.2d 285, 287 (App.1985) ("ordinarily a defendant should be required to seek appellate special action review when he disagrees with the ruling that a dismissal is without prejudice"). ¶ 24 We are aware that our supreme court has rejected the requirement that all speedy trial issues should be brought by special action; however, it has also acknowledged that "a special action on speedy trial issues promotes judicial economy." Tucker, 133 Ariz. at 306 , 651 P.2d at 361 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Stout
green
2 sentences1978State v. Stout, 5 Ariz.App. 271 , 425 P.2d 582 (1967); State v. Adair, supra. Thus, it was necessary for the prosecutor to interrupt the defense’s final argument in order to make timely objections. 1978State v. Stout, 5 Ariz.App. 271 , 425 P.2d 582 (1967); State v. Adair, supra. Thus, it was necessary for the prosecutor to interrupt the defense’s final argument in order to make timely objections. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Beliak Ex Rel. Beliak v. Plants
green
2 sentences1976Beliak v. Plants, 93 Ariz. 266 , 379 P.2d 976 (1963). 1976Beliak v. Plants, 93 Ariz. 266 , 379 P.2d 976 (1963). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Phoenix Baking Co. v. Vaught
neutral
2 sentences1968In plaintiffs brief before this Court, he also argued that the instruction requiring “extra precaution” upon making a left turn between intersections differs from the one approved in Phoenix Baking Co. v. Vaught, 62 Ariz. 222 , 156 P.2d 725 , in that the instruction there approved was limited to left-hand turns on “much-traveled highways,” while in the instant case no such limitation was mentioned. 1968In plaintiffs brief before this Court, he also argued that the instruction requiring “extra precaution” upon making a left turn between intersections differs from the one approved in Phoenix Baking Co. v. Vaught, 62 Ariz. 222 , 156 P.2d 725 , in that the instruction there approved was limited to left-hand turns on “much-traveled highways,” while in the instant case no such limitation was mentioned. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.