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. Sorrell, 388 P.2d 429.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    see also 47 Am.Jur.2d Jury § 309 (1969).
  • State v. Salazar 774 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Salazar 774 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    For example, , holds that evidence of retail and wholesale prices is admissible to “fix the range within which the jury may find fair market val *573 ue.”
  • State v. Swartz 683 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Swartz 683 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Ware 557 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Ware 557 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    now urged by appellant on appeal as setting forth the correct statement of law, does not convince us that fundamental error has been committed.
  • State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
    This court will not disturb a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial unless it appears there has been an abuse of discretion, , ; , ; , ; , .
  • State v. Zimmer 472 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Zimmer 472 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1969
    at 225 , said: “Although proceeding with the trial when the appellant was not present was not technically correct, it does not furnish sufficient basis for reversal under these circumstances.” It must be noted that the defendant in that case was absent for not more than seven minutes.
  • State v. Jones 448 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Jones 448 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1968
    in which the evidence was introduced in regard to retail and wholesale values of property, we held: “ * * * The wholesale and retail prices, established by experts if necessary, may fix the range within which the jury may find fair market value.
  • State v. Payne 436 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Payne 436 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Clark 434 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Clark 434 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Evidence of retail price of stolen goods is admissible to show the value of the goods, (citations omitted) The wholesale and retail prices, established by experts if necessary, may fix the range within which the jury may find fair market value.”
  • State v. Denton 420 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Denton 420 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Webb 419 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Webb 419 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. George 414 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. George 414 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Randle 410 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Randle 410 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    The wholesale and retail prices, established by experts if necessary, may fix the range within which the jury may find fair market value.” at 224 , at 431 (1964).