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 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 15 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698 Anchor | green | “the court admitted evidence of both potential placements as clearly relevant to the best interests of the child, although neither was disclosed until late in the case.” | 3 |
| 2 | Pima County v. Gonzalez | green | “in determining whether the instructions given were correct, the test is whether, considering the instructions as a whole, the jury was properly guided in arriving at a correct decision.” | 3 |
| 3 | Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. | green | “if juror a. did not perceive his donations as for the protection of children, but for some other purpose, there would be neither perjury nor a willful failure to respond fully, and thus no misconduct.” | 3 |
| 4 | State v. Petrak | green | “refused to give a requested instruction that is covered adequately by the given instructions.” | 3 |
| 5 | State v. Rosas-Hernandez | green | “the test is whether the instructions, viewed in their entirety, adequately set forth the law applicable to the case.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.