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. Irving, 797 P.2d 1237.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    statute.”); -17, ¶ 4 (App. 2003); (“[Section 22-375] limit[s] this court’s review to the facial validity of [a challenged statute].
  • State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    2 STATE v. BURKE Opinion of the Court review of the facial validity of the [statute].”); (“[A.R.S.
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    (once document admitted under Rule 901, “‘the opponent is still free to contest the genuineness or authenticity of the document, and the weight to be given the document becomes a question for the trier of fact’”)
  • State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    6 4 We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of the Marana conviction records.
  • State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    (statute providing for self-authentication of Arizona Department of Transportation records construed to supplement rules of evidence and to provide reasonable and workable method of introducing motor-vehicle records about defendants); Seidel (statutory method of introducing evidence of breat
  • State v. Savio 924 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Savio 924 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    The issue presented in this appeal is whether Motor Vehicle Division (“MVD”) records attested to only by a computer-generated facsimile signature but which have not been personally inspected by a , and Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“A.R.S.”) section 28-110(F) and are therefore admissible.
  • Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Slayton v. Shumway, 166 Ariz. at 92 , 800 P.2d at 595
  • State v. Crisp 855 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Crisp 855 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Martin 847 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Martin 847 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    (citing 1 M. Udall and J. Livermore, Arizona Practice—Law of Evidence § 111, at 221-22 (2d ed. 1982)); see also United States v. Long, 857 F.2d 436, 442 (8th Cir.1988) (“To authenticate a document, the proponent need only prove a rational basis for the claim that the document is w