Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lombardo, 457 P.2d 275.

31 citing documents.

State v. Crews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Crews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See id.; (“That information was fully developed at trial and the record will be available to Lombardo as a bar to any subsequent action which might be filed against him for the same offense.”).
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“fully developed” information would bar subsequent action filed against defendant for same offense); (“A double jeopardy defense is not limited to the four corners of the indictment.”).
State v. Anderson 916 P.2d 1170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Anderson 916 P.2d 1170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Woods v. City Court of City of Tucson 626 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Woods v. City Court of City of Tucson 626 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mallory, 19 Ariz.App.
State v. Phelps 608 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile No. J-86509 604 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile No. J-86509 604 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
§ 13-673, and that, therefore, , and State v. Marlin, 5 Ariz.App.
State v. Smith 593 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 593 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Robinson, 9 Ariz.App.
State v. Ford 499 P.2d 699 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ford 499 P.2d 699 Ariz. 1972
This court, , , held that private security police, not controlled or paid by any law.
State v. Fulper 493 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Fulper 493 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Although the specific question here involved was not discussed, , , for example of in-formations using language almost identical to the language used in the information here being considered.
State v. Garza 486 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Garza 486 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In this connection, , a later Arizona Supreme Court decision dealing with an information charging the crime of grand theft.
State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co. 484 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1971
State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co. 484 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1971
State v. Terrell, supra.
State v. Christopher 457 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Christopher 457 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
We do not believe Hess means that statements made to private persons must meet the same stringent tests as those made to police officials, , nor do they have the same inherent dangers elaborated upon in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct.
State v. Salerno 457 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1969
State v. Salerno 457 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1969
We considered questions raised common to-both appellants in State v. Lombardo, Ariz., .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by