Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dugan, 555 P.2d 108.

51 citing documents.

State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re Mh2017-006308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Mh2017-006308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(explaining judgment will be upheld if the correct legal decision was reached even if the reasoning was based on different grounds).
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We may affirm the superior court “on any grounds which were within the issues.”
State v. Jacot 330 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jacot 330 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n. 1 , n. 1 (1976) (“Cases have recognized that in most instances a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to a nonintrusive viewing of items in his driveway.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We will affirm the judgment “on any grounds which were within the issues, such as where the correct legal result was reached even though it was based on the wrong reason.” (citations omitted).
State v. Salamanca 311 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Salamanca 311 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
We may affirm the superior court "on any grounds which were within the issues.”
State v. Blakley 243 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Blakley 243 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
356 n. 1, , 110 n. 1 (1976), , in support of its argument.
State of Arizona v. Ryan Ray Olm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Ryan Ray Olm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(driveway generally considered “semiprivate” and resident‟s privacy expectation for “activities on his driveway will generally depend on the nature of the activities and the degree of visibility from the street”); n.1, n.1 (1976) (“[I]n most instances a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to a non-intrusive viewing of items in his driveway.”).
State v. Sheko 704 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Sheko 704 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Perez 687 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1984
State v. Perez 687 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1984
State v. Will 672 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1983
State v. Will 672 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1983
State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Morrow 625 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1981
State v. Morrow 625 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1981
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
State v. Claxton 594 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Claxton 594 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
the state claims it can still rely on these different theories.
State v. Coleman 593 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Coleman 593 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); , .(1976).
State v. Warren 589 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Warren 589 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Lynch 587 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Lynch 587 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
A consent search is outside the ambit of traditional Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, , but clear and positive evidence in unequivocal, words or conduct expressing consent must be shown.
State v. Walker 579 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1978
State v. Walker 579 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1978
State v. Dugan, 113 * P.2d 108 (1976).
State v. White 574 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Donahoe 574 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Donahoe 574 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
42 , 46 L.Ed.2d 43 (1975)
State v. Burnley 560 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1977
State v. Burnley 560 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1977
State v. Moody 560 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1977
State v. Moody 560 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1977
State v. Winters 556 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by