Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jimenez, 634 P.2d 950.

36 citing documents.

State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Collateral estoppel requires that the “issue sought to be relitigated must be precisely the same as the issue in the previous litigation.”
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
–41 (1981) (refusing to abandon the mutuality requirement for collateral estoppel in criminal cases).
State v. Hon gordon/gerow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hon gordon/gerow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970)).
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶29 Collateral estoppel generally means that the parties are barred from relitigating an issue in a future proceeding when the “issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment.” (internal quotation omitted).
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Similarly, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that collateral estoppel requires that “the issue sought to be relitigated must be precisely the same as the issue in the previous litigation.” , *564 952 (1981); see also Rodriguez, 198 Ariz. at 141, ¶ 5 , 7 P.3d at 150 (same).
State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 13 Our supreme court has held that “[t]he traditional elements of collateral estoppel are: [1] the issue sought to be relitigated must be precisely the same as the issue in the previous litigation; [2] a final decision on the issue must have been necessary for the judgment in the prior litigation; [and][3] there must be mutuality of parties.” , see also Rodriguez, 198 Ariz. at 141, ¶ 5 , 7 P.3d at 150 (same).
State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“The traditional elements of collateral estoppel are: the issue sought to be relitigated must be precisely the same as the issue in the previous litigation; a final decision on the issue must have been necessary for the judgment in the prior litigation; [and] there must be mutuality of parties.”
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
For collateral estoppel to apply, “the issue sought to be relitigated must be precisely the same as the issue in the previous litigation.”
State v. Orendain 916 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Orendain 916 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Robles 901 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Robles 901 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
and under the facts of that case refused to abandon the requirement of mutuality in criminal matters.
State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
“A trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal ‘if reasonable minds can differ on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence.’ ” , ( , ).
State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Forteson, 8 Ariz.App.