Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jacobs, 380 P.2d 998.

36 citing documents.

State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Citing Bonelli I 1Riverbanks (left vs. right) are identified from a downstream perspective; Arizona’s bank of the Colorado River is the left bank.
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Gordon 778 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1989
State v. Gordon 778 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1989
State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
and State v. Scofield, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Hunter 539 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1975
State v. Hunter 539 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1975
is dispositive of appellant’s argument.
State v. Williams 526 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1974
State v. Williams 526 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1974
State v. Burchett 484 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
State v. Burchett 484 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
Applying this test to the cases which have been decided by this Court in the past — for example — , , app. dismissed, 375 U.S. 46 , 84 S.Ct.
State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
“ , ; , .” In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct.
State v. Padilla 474 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1970
State v. Padilla 474 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1970
we held that it is the fact of forcible removal and not the distance involved that establishes the crime of kidnapping.
State v. Bonelli Cattle Company 464 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Bonelli Cattle Company 464 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
77, 83 , (review denied 21 March 1967)
State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
(burglary and rape); , (burglary and theft); , (possession of narcotics, sale of narcotics and possession incidental to sale as included); , (kidnapping with intent to rape and rape).
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Morris 160 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1968
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
■Criminal Law § 133, at p. 353
State v. Gunther & Shirley Company 423 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Gunther & Shirley Company 423 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
(citations omitted) “In boundary disputes between states, as in those between riparian owners, the rule is established that where a stream which forms a boundary line suddenly leaves its old bed and forms a new one, by the process of avulsion, there is no alteration of the boundary line.”
State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
State v. Green 403 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1965
State v. Green 403 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1965
In Vallejos possession of narcotics before and after the sale, and the sale itself, were both found to be punishable; in State v. Hutton, supra, burglary and theft; , , kidnapping with intent to rape, and rape.
State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965
State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965