DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hocker, 556 P.2d 784.

38 citing documents.

  • Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
  • Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
    disapproved on other grounds
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
    455 n. 1, , 789 n. 1 (1976) (burden of proof under rule does not shift to defendant).
  • Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
  • State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Palmer 751 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Palmer 751 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    overruled on other grounds
  • State v. Inthavong 402 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Fimbres 733 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Fimbres 733 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    n. # 1, n. 1 (1976), overruled on other grounds, , purports to define evidence as including argument or legal theory.
  • State v. Young 720 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Young 720 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    -55 , -89 (1976) disapproved of on other grounds
  • State v. Rivera 624 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Rivera 624 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Clovis 618 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Clovis 618 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
    § 21-408(A); Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, supra; , overruled on other grounds, , State v. Good, 10 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Eason 604 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Eason 604 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)
  • State v. Jarzab 599 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jarzab 599 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1979
    oraneously with the officer’s arrival, approached and identified the vehicle as belonging to him.” He urges that the officer was operating on “a hunch” or “a vague, unsubstantiated suspicion” and that his Fourth Amendment rights 3 were violated by conducting a
  • State v. White 592 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. White 592 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Little 590 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Little 590 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1979
    ” 116 Ariz. at 39 , 567 P.2d at 785 .
  • State v. Woods 589 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Woods 589 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1979
    Our court has interpreted “appropriate circumstances” to mean “a reasonable suspicion * * * that ‘some activity out of the ordinary’ is or had occurred, some suggestion to connect the detained person with the unusual activity, and some indication that the activity is related to crime, (citation omitted)”
  • State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
    appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to make a finding for the record that the evidence was lawfully seized.
  • State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lelevier 567 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Lelevier 567 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1977
    that ‘some activity out of the ordinary’ is or had occurred, some suggestion to connect the detained person with the unusual activity, and some indication that the activity is related to crime.”