DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Montano v. Superior Court Pima County, 719 P.2d 271.

77 citing documents.

  • State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    the supreme court recognized the “crucial” evidentiary value of a suspect’s breath or, as here, blood sample to DUI prosecutions.
  • State v. Meshurle 793 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Meshurle 793 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    This appeal questions the propriety of the trial court’s dismissal of a
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 789 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 789 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1990
    The court held that because the state gave defendants a choice between taking replicate breath tests, where they were advised that no Baca samples of their breath would be saved, and a single blood test, where defendants were advised that a sample of blood would be preserved for later testing by all parties, , , , , were satisfied.
  • Newell v. Town of Oro Valley 789 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Newell v. Town of Oro Valley 789 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 788 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 788 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    the court gave the key to the decision in this case: An essential lesson to be drawn from McNutt [v. Superior Court of State of Arizona, , ], Scales [v. City Court of City of Mesa, , ], and Baca [v. Smith, , 604 P.2d
  • State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Miller 778 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Miller 778 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Appellee filed three motions to dismiss, the motion in question contending that dismissal was re1 , because appellee was not advised by the arresting officers that he had a right to an independent blood test.
  • State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
    This arises most frequently in DWI cases because of the “unique evidentiary circumstances attendant to DWI arrests”, , .
  • State v. Havatone 769 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Havatone 769 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    the court held that the Arizona DUI statute 3 permitted, but did not impose a duty upon the state to perform a chemical test for blood alcohol content of DUI suspects.
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court 744 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1987
  • Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court 744 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1987
    This arises most frequently in DWI cases because of the “unique evidentiary circumstances attendant to DWI arrests”
  • State v. Ramos 745 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Ramos 745 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    The trial court dismissed without prejudice the DWI portion of the charge
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
    Keen also asserts that our opinions in Baca, supra, , create a privileged status for the defendant’s breath sample.
  • State v. LaGrand 733 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. LaGrand 733 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1987
    Our jurisprudence has long recognized that a constitutional waiver is not valid unless the defendant manifests “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” , (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct.