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. Hoffman, 279 P.2d 898.

50 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
    “The purpose of an objection is to permit the trial court to rectify possible error and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” (internal citation omitted).
  • State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    “The purpose of an objection is to permit the [superior] court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” ¶ 30 (2003) ().
  • State v. Soza 464 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Soza 464 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (holding the defendant’s conviction of two counts of selling assets with intent to defraud constituted double jeopardy because the offense was defined by the sale conduct, not the number or type of objects sold); (defendant’s “simultaneous possession of nine ar
  • State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 30 (2003) (“The purpose of an objection is to permit the trial court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” (); ¶ 27 (App. 2016) (use of the word “object,” or any specific word, is not required to make an objection or to preserve an issue for appeal).
  • State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    10 STATE v. FOSHAY Opinion of the Court error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.’”)
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    (“‘The purpose of an objection is to permit the trial court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.’”)
  • State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    This gives the court an opportunity to correct any error and allows opposing counsel a chance to “ ‘obviate the objection.’”
  • State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
    ¶ 30 “The purpose of an objection is to permit the trial court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    a defendant was improperly convicted of two counts of sale of assets with the intent to defraud creditors.
  • Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
  • Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Gomez 553 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Gomez 553 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Lippard 549 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Lippard 549 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Cavanagh v. Ohio Farmers Insurance Company 509 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Cavanagh v. Ohio Farmers Insurance Company 509 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. McGinnes 505 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. McGinnes 505 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); , *155 (1955).
  • Drumwright v. Lynn Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. 482 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Drumwright v. Lynn Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. 482 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    The objection seems to be directed rather to the sufficiency of the comptroller’s personal knowledge of the method and time of preparation, and the sources of information, , which is not a particularly helpful reference since the court declined to answer the question because it had not been preserved by sufficient objection in the trial court.
  • State v. Bennin 480 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Bennin 480 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1971
    and contends it is directly in point.
  • State v. Wahrlich 459 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Wahrlich 459 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sorensen 455 P.2d 981 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sorensen 455 P.2d 981 Ariz. 1969
    (citing cases) It is the court’s function to decide whether evidence is competent to justify certain inferences; it is not the court’s function to decide which of various inferences should be drawn.’ ” , and United States v. Valenti, 134 F.2d 362 (2d Cir. 1943), cert.
  • State v. Reynolds 449 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Reynolds 449 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    on the question of whether the trial court failed to state specifically that defendant could be found guilty or not guilty on each count separately, the Supreme Court after considering all the instructions as a whole, approved the following instruction on the forms of verdict:.
  • State ex rel. Herman v. Wilson 422 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State ex rel. Herman v. Wilson 422 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
    Defendant admits that a ruling by the trial court upon a motion for continuance will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion appears, , , and such abuse is prejudicial to the defendant.
  • State v. Maxwell 391 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Maxwell 391 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1964
    wherein we cited Gates v. United States, (10th Cir. 1941) 122 F.2d 571, 575 , to the effect that: “ * * * fraudulent intent, as a mental element of crime, is often difficult to prove by direct evidence.
  • Everett v. State 356 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1960
  • Everett v. State 356 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1960
    This does not of itself bar defendant’s claim, for, , , 902: “Whether a speedy trial has been denied will vary with the facts of the case.” Here, defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice as a result of the trial court’s granting the continuance.
  • State v. Romero 336 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1959
  • State v. Romero 336 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1959
    we said, “ * * * The purpose of an objection is to permit the trial court to rectify possible error, [Citing case], and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.