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. Singh, 419 P.2d 403.

31 citing documents.

  • Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    hat a crime different than that originally charged was committed and noting “[a] defendant does not suffer a constitutionally diminished entitlement to notice from the state simply because a trial is being conducted on one charge and evidence of another offense has been admitted.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Freeney, 223 Ariz. at 113-114, ¶¶ 21-26, 219 P.3d at 1042-43; (disapproving amendment changing recipient of forged document on grounds that the substitution of a different recipi
  • State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    We concluded that “all of 2 P.2d 403 (1966), Allen maintains that “the use of the false name did not constitute an uttering.” His reliance on Singh is misplaced, however, because that case applied a former forgery statute distinct from § 13- 2002(A)(1), and an “uttering” is no longer an element of the offense.
  • State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Phelps 608 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Phelps 608 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Archer 603 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Archer 603 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    Cf., State v. Cousins, 4 Ariz.App.
  • State v. King 569 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. King 569 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
    as being analogous and supporting his position, but we do not find this to be correct.
  • State v. Juarez 524 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Juarez 524 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1974
    for the proposition that the indictment charged a separate and distinct crime from the one that was tried — sale to the officer instead of sale to Lewis — and thus materially prejudiced the rights of appellant.- The appellant was on notice of the specific *121 charge, and a conviction or acquitt
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Bollander 484 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Bollander 484 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    510 , , State v. Rogers, 2 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Bridges 468 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Bridges 468 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    593 , , see The Schooner Hoppet and Cargo v. United States, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 389 , 3 L.Ed.
  • Transamerica Insurance v. Valley National Bank 462 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Transamerica Insurance v. Valley National Bank 462 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Reyes 458 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Reyes 458 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Ponds 420 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Ponds 420 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    decided 26 October 1966.