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. Jones, 865 P.2d 138.

28 citing documents.

  • Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” (citation omitted).
  • Crowell v. Jejna 161 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Crowell v. Jejna 161 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    -74 , -92 (1991) (prior Scottsdale city ordinance banning certain striptease performances held void on First Amendment grounds); , (indecent exposure statute may not under the First Amendment be applied to theater and dance); , (invalidating Maricopa County zoning ordinance regulating “adult live entertainment establishments”).
  • State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.’ ” , quoting John E. Nowak, et al., Constitutional Law, ch. 18, § III at 868 (2d ed.1983); see also Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 118-119 , 123 S.Ct.
  • State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    10 Amendment.’” quoting John E. Nowak, et al., Constitutional Law, ch. 18, § III at 868 (2d ed. 1983); see also Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, ___, 123 S. Ct. 2191, 2196, 156 L. Ed. 2d 148, ___ (2003).
  • State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” McLamb, 188 Ariz. at 9 , 932 P.2d at 274 ( , ) ( , ) (internal quotations omitted)(alteration original).
  • Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    in which our supreme court held that the First Amendment protects “non-obscene dancing at locations that do not serve alcohol”; , (“even nude dancing enjoys some protection” under First Amendment); , (nude or partially nude dancing “may be protected by the First Amendment”).
  • State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    “ ‘An overbroad statute is one designed to burden or punish activities which are not constitutionally protected, but the statute includes withiii its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.’ ” , (quoting John E. Nowak et al., Constitutional Law ch. 18, § III, at 868 (2d ed.1983); , ).
  • State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    “An overbroad statute is one designed to burden or punish activities which are not constitutionally protected, but the statute includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” , quoting John E. Nowak, et al., Constitutional Law, ch. 18, § III at 868 (2d ed.1983).
  • State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” , ( , ).
  • 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. Baldwin 908 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Baldwin 908 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” , (quoting John E. Nowak et al., Constitutional Law ch. 18, § III, at 868 (2d ed. 1983)).
  • State v. Weinstein 898 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Weinstein 898 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (citing John E. Nowak et al., Constitutional Law ch. 18, § III, at 868 (2d ed. 1983)).