DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Anders, 400 P.2d 852.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    (“The record in a court of record is the highest evidence of what was done and it is conclusive unless attacked for fraud.”).
  • State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Pinto v. Superior Court 583 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Pinto v. Superior Court 583 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Division One of this court held that a trial court could not impose enhanced punishment where the pri- or felony conviction alleged for enhancement had been ordered stricken from the information in the pretrial hearing.
  • State v. Jacobson 504 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Jacobson 504 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Adcox 503 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Adcox 503 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1972
    226 , , Arizona Constitution, art. VI, § 30, A.R.S.
  • State v. St. John 503 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. St. John 503 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1972
    226 , , Arizona Constitution, Article VI, § 30, A.R.S.
  • Hackin v. Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co. 457 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Hackin v. Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co. 457 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    A May 5, 1965, minute entry order in the consolidated actions recites: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED upon stipulation of all parties, that a jury trial is waived before pre-trial.” (Emphasis added) There has never been an effort, by motion or otherwise, to correct this minute entry to which we import verity, , nor has there ever been a formal motion made- to the court to be relieved of this stipulation.
  • State v. Rockerfeller 451 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Rockerfeller 451 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    A court clerk has a duty to make a record of the proceedings of the court, , 14 C.J.S.
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Superior Court of Pima County 436 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Superior Court of Pima County 436 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    Since the minutes of the trial court are presumed to speak the truth, , we must perforce conclude that no evidence was presented to the trial court bearing on the defendant’s age or any misrepresentation in regard thereto.
  • State v. Kelley 434 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Kelley 434 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • City of Glendale v. Skok 432 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • City of Glendale v. Skok 432 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Palmer 424 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Palmer 424 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    State v. Claytor, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Claytor 413 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Claytor 413 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    The minutes of the trial court speak for themselves and are to be taken as speaking the truth, , therefore, we suggest the court in the interest of correcting the record upon reconsideration of this cause clarify this point.
  • Associates Finance Corporation v. Scott 411 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Associates Finance Corporation v. Scott 411 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    that: “The minutes of the trial court speak for themselves, and are not, except in case of ambiguity, to be amplified or explained by extraneous evidence.” ( 1 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Anders 406 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Anders 406 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965