DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Miranda, 401 P.2d 721.

29 citing documents.

  • State v. Owens 540 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Owens 540 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
    is the decision reversed, on certiorari, by the above-cited decision of the United States Supreme Court.
  • Application of Billie 429 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Application of Billie 429 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    Likewise in Miranda review of the Arizona Supreme Court’s affirmance of the judgment of conviction was obtained by certiorari, , ( 382 U.S. 925 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State v. Powell 423 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Powell 423 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Cited also to the contrary effect, holding that an affirmative request for counsel is required
  • Loftis v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 417 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Loftis v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 417 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
  • State Ex Rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash 141 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Bird 407 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Bird 407 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Goff 407 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Goff 407 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1965
    1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , , , and rejected Dorado quoting and citing many'of the cases adopting the opposing view.
  • State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Fullen 404 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Fullen 404 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Shook 404 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Shook 404 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    released on April 22, 1965, is conclusive of the defendant’s contention that his constitutional rights were violated in not providing him with counsel in connection with the interrogation at the police department.
  • State v. Tannahill 402 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Tannahill 402 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    Justice McFarland, in a most recent opinion, , , decided April 22, 1965, in a most scholarly opinion, wrote on the admissibility of a statement made where the defendant did not have an attorney at the time he signed the statement.
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
    We further find that the principles of law announced in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, supra, , .
  • State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1965
    Defendant likewise confessed to the crimes of kidnapping and rape as disclosed in State v. Miranda, Cause No. 1394, , hereinafter referred to as the companion case.