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. McInelly, 704 P.2d 291.

31 citing documents.

  • State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    “There is no requirement that the indictment charge appellant as an accomplice in order to permit a jury instruction to that effect.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (“There is no requirement that the indictment charge appellant as an accomplice in order to permit a jury instruction to that effect.”).
  • In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hardesty 204 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Hardesty 204 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (noting driver’s transportation of and use of an intoxicating substance threatens public safety).
  • State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Co., -97 , -13 (1988)); , 531 ¶ 8, (“[A] statute must be rationally related to furthering a legitimate governmental interest.”); , (If the legislative reasoning is related to public health, safety or welfare, we will not question the legislature in passing the statute.).
  • State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa 965 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa 965 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Padilla 817 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Padilla 817 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    The state, , argues that there is no constitutional right to a plea agreement and that it, the state, may impose any condition on the bargain that it wants.
  • State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Winton 736 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Winton 736 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Felix 737 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Tyrrell 733 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Tyrrell 733 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    This issue, in another context
  • State v. Felix 737 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Solano 724 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Solano 724 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1986
    United States v. Nuckols, 606 F.2d 566, 569 (5th Cir.1979)