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. Thomas, 454 P.2d 153.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Corwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Corwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    when ruling on a motion for new trial”) (citations omitted)
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
    Thomas, –12, –57 (1969); –71, –96 (1970)
  • State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    court ruling on a motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence does not view the evidence in the light most favorable to 5 STATE v. FISCHER Opinion of the Court sustaining the verdict, nor does it resolve all conflicting inferences in favor of sustaining the verdict.3 -12 (1969); -44 (1954); -49 (App. 1982).
  • McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 9 , ¶ 23 , Reeves, 119 Ariz. at 163 , 579 P.2d at 1386 ; , Lyle v. Boyle, 16 Ariz.App.
  • Peak v. Acuna 50 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2002
  • Peak v. Acuna 50 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2002
    Rule 24.1, Ariz.R.Crim.P.; -12, -57 (1969) (trial judge has duty to set aside verdict he or she feels is against weight of evidence; judge’s decision will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion).
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    “ ‘An incriminating statement of a third person which is admitted to be true by the accused, is admissible in evidence against him as his own statement by adoption.’ ” , quoting People v. Henderson, 37 Ill.2d 489, 493 , 229 N.E.2d 519, 521 (1967).
  • State v. Daugherty 845 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Daugherty 845 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    Ariz.R.Evid., 801(d)(2)(A), 17A A.R.S.; -11 , -56 (1969); , M. Udall and J. Livermore, Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence, § 125, p. 257-58 & n. 24 (2d ed. 1981).
  • State v. Kennedy 570 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Kennedy 570 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    In support of this proposition they cite the following cases: , , , and State v. Tellez, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Melot 502 P.2d 1346 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Melot 502 P.2d 1346 Ariz. 1972
    Accordingly, “ * * * the warning must be given when the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, and also reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is the one who committed it.”
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
    State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Mumbaugh 491 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Mumbaugh 491 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1971
    this Court said: “As our Court of Appeals indicated in State v. Tellez, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Bunow 476 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Bunow 476 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    which, although a criminal case, quotes extensively from cases involving new trial orders in civil actions.