Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gates, 576 P.2d 1357.

32 citing documents.

State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Salazar-Rosas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Salazar-Rosas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Krenklis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Followed State v. Krenklis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Crowell v. Jejna 161 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Crowell v. Jejna 161 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-74 , -92 (1991) (prior Scottsdale city ordinance banning certain striptease performances held void on First Amendment grounds); , (indecent exposure statute may not under the First Amendment be applied to theater and dance); , (invalidating Maricopa County zoning ordinance regulating “adult live entertainment establishments”).
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See State v. Gates ("Gates III")
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
“A court is neither required nor prohibited from applying a decision retrospectively,” and “a state court may make the choice for itself between prospective or retrospective application of its decisions.” 360 , 1360 (1978).
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
“A court is neither required nor prohibited from applying a decision retrospectively,” and “a state court may make the choice for itself between prospective or retrospective application of its decisions.” 360, 1360 (1978).
State v. Sandoval 857 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Sandoval 857 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
and Attwood v. Purcell, 402 F.Supp.
State v. Whitaker 793 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Whitaker 793 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
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
State v. Beck 726 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Beck 726 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
241, opinion approved by , Division One of this court found that indecent exposure to other adults fit within the ambit of the emotional propensity rule.
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
Lemieux v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 644 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1982
Lemieux v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 644 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1982
“A state is free under the Constitution to make a choice for itself between the principle of forward operation of a ruling and that of relation backward.”
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
“A state is free under the Constitution to make a choice for itself between the principle of forward operation of a ruling and that of relation backward.”
Wortham v. City of Tucson 624 P.2d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Wortham v. City of Tucson 624 P.2d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980