Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lindner, 252 P.3d 1033.

20 citing documents.

Berkman v. Walt Danley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Berkman v. Walt Danley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
MacLeod v. Mogollon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 3, n. 1 (App. 2010), and we do not address it.
State v. Siljander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 2 (App. 2010) (citing A.R.S.
Ruinard, Jr. v. Scroggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73; ¶ 3 n.1 (App. 2010) (recognizing an appellate court will not address undeveloped arguments); Romero v. Sw.
State v. Domas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Domas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 2 (App. 2010) (citing A.R.S.
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
n.1, ¶ 3 (App. 2010) (recognizing that an appellate court will not address arguments that are not developed in a defendant’s opening brief).
Shores v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 3, n.1 (App. 2010) (finding waiver 3 SHORES v. DIAZ Decision of the Court of arguments that were raised in a reply brief but not advanced in the opening brief); ¶ 101, n.9 (20
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
3 STATE v. ALEMAN Decision of the Court omitted); ¶ 3, n.1 (App. 2010) (finding waiver of arguments that were raised in a reply brief but not advanced in the opening brief).
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
on which the appellant relies”); n.1, ¶ 3 (App. 2010) (finding waiver because defendant “summarily refers” to issues in his opening brief and “fail[s] to argue them”).
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Hegyi, -41, ¶ 6 (2014)); ¶ 6 (App. 2010).
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
n.1, ¶ 3 (App. 2010) (appellate court will not address arguments that are not developed in a defendant’s opening brief).
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.1, ¶ 3 (App. 2010) (appellate court will not address undeveloped arguments).
State v. Adkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.1, ¶ 3, n.1 (App. 2010) (appellate court will not address arguments that are not developed in a defendant’s opening brief).
State v. Bagdonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DISCUSSION ¶7 Because this appeal arises out of justice court matters, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Bagdonas’ “challenge insofar as it is a challenge to [the] application of the statute.” ¶3
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 29, (concluding that reversal is unwarranted when an erroneous jury instruction benefits the defendant); n.1, ¶ 3, n.1 (App. 2010) (appellate court will not address arguments that are not developed in a defendant’s opening brief).
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 3 n. 1, , 1034 n. 1 (App.2010).
State v. Shivers 280 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
e used in court” as foundation for the breath-test results, are non-testimonial because they are created to serve the primarily administrative purpose of assuring accuracy of each testing device without being “aimed at a particular defendant or related to a specific ease.” 190, ¶¶ 17-18, 29 , 479 (App.2006); -72, ¶ 8 , -36 (App.2010) (concluding rationale of Bohsancurt survives Melendez-Diaz).