Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Webb, 274 P.2d 338.

30 citing documents.

State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–40 (1954) (“actual physical control” provision is to “enable the drunken driver to be apprehended before he strikes”); ¶ 9, (citing with approval Webb’s “before he strikes” language); Dawley, 201 Ariz. at 288, ¶ 9, 34 P.3d at 397 (“[T
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
5 physical control were added in the disjunctive.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 626 (1995); P.2d 456 (1983); P.2d 338 (1954); Potter v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., P.3d 837 (App. 2002); Dawley.
State v. Dawley 34 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Dawley 34 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
This was a departure from previous case law, , which had established a “bright line test” whereby a driver who had pulled off the road and turned off the engine was determined not to have been in actual physical control, a policy-based analysis designed to encourage impaired drivers to remove themselves from our state’s highways.
Shane v. Commissioner of Public Safety 587 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1998
State v. Superior Court of State 945 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Superior Court of State 945 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(defendant guilty of DUI when found asleep inside a truck which was stopped in a traffic lane with its engine running) , (defendant not guilty of DUI when found asleep inside truck which was stopped in an emergency lane with key in ignition
State v. Love 897 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1995
State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Brown 898 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1995
State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Brown 898 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1995
State v. Love 897 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1995
See, , (defendant found sleeping inside a truck that was stopped in a traffic lane, with its bright lights on and engine running).
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 845 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 845 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Starfield 481 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1992
State v. Vermuele 772 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Vermuele 772 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
our supreme court held that the words “or be in actual physical control,” added by the 1950 amendment to the statute, manifested an intent that the law be applied to people who had control of a vehicle although they were not actually driving it or placing it in motion.
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Allen also argues that “[t]he state has by implication recognized the diminishing state interest as one moves away from the actual traffic lanes” of highways, , , and State v. Superior Court, County of Greenlee
State v. SUPER. CT., GREENLEE COUNTY 735 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. SUPER. CT., GREENLEE COUNTY 735 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Thurmer 348 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Zavala 666 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zavala 666 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zavala 666 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Zavala 666 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
the court held the defendant was in actual physical control of an automobile when he was passed out behind the wheel and the motor was running.
State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski 308 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1981