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. Fuentes, 551 P.2d 554.

46 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    444, 446-47 , -27 , approved
  • State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    444, 450 , (“Double jeopardy principles do not proscribe successive or multiple facets of an otherwise constitutionally acceptable punishment scheme adopted by a state as punishment to be imposed as the result of any one particular conviction.”), aff'd, , (approving opinion of Court of Appeals).
  • State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Roberts v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 781 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1989
    However, since Germany , we have continued to set forth what evidence is necessary to prove that employment is “reasonably available.” In Dean v. Industrial Comm’n, , we held that to prove with reasonable certainty that a claimant could secure a job, the evidence must “include, but is not limited to, the competition for available positions, ...
  • Arden-Mayfair v. Industrial Commission 764 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    availability of the job upon which the award is calculated is demonstrated with at least express reference to the impaired worker’s disability to compete for that job and the likelihood that the potential employer will hire somebody with a previous disability.”
  • D'AMICO v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 717 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    at 580 , 672 P.2d at 924 ( , ).
  • State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
    444 , , approved and adopted, , State v. Tritle, 15 Ariz.App.
  • Hoppin v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 692 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    Since we have concluded that the award must be set aside, we need not dwell on *126 claimant’s contention that the testimony of the carrier’s
  • MacIas v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 677 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1984
    See Roach, supra; , Davis, supra.
  • Roach v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 672 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1983
  • Zimmerman v. Industrial Commission 672 P.2d 922 Ariz. 1983
    2 A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 57.60, 57.61 (1981).
  • State v. Wietholter 636 P.2d 101 Ariz. 1981
  • Wells v. Industrial Commission 632 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Gessner 626 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Gessner 626 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    444 , approved and adopted
  • State v. Jones 625 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    444 , , approved and adopted
  • State v. Seip 623 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    444 , affirmed, , , Annot.
  • State v. Brodie 618 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Brodie 618 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
    444 , , approved and adopted, , was faced with a similar situation.
  • State v. Velazquez 593 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    444 , aff'd and adopted, , where we held that time spent in the county jail as a condition of probation did not have to be credited against a prison sentence ultimately imposed when the probation was revoked.
  • Wiedmaier v. Industrial Commission 589 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
    Employer’s Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Industrial Commission, 25 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    444 , , aff’d , (adopts opinion of Ct.App.), and we will view probation in that sense for purposes of application of the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions.
  • State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    444 , adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
    444 , majority opinion adopted by this court in , a case involving Rule 31.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., which requires notice of appeal to be filed within 20 days “after the entry of judgment and sentence,” held for purposes of Rule 31.3, that the term “sentence” includes the granting of probation.
  • State v. Layman 573 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Layman 573 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 569 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 569 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rowe 569 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1977
    Credit for time served as a condition of probation, and the time served credited by the sentencing judge against such probation, were both resolved contrary to appellant’s , aff’d
  • State v. Montgomery 566 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Montgomery 566 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1977
    444 , approved , and the court may require that a defendant comply with numerous conditions of probation when, in the opinion of the court, such conditions aid in the rehabilitation process or prove a reasonable alternative to incarceration as punishment for the crime committed.
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    444 , majority opinion of the Court of Appeals adopted by Arizona Supreme Court in , holding that probation is a “sentence”.
  • State v. Gray 564 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Gray 564 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Industrial Commission 560 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Burton v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 558 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Hadley 559 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Hadley 559 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Burton v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 558 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977