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. Williams, 639 P.2d 1036.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Holt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Holt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Eschrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Eschrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Such a use is permitted by Arizona Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B); (statements made to investigating officer in a sexual assault case were admissible at trial as prior consistent statements).
  • 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
  • State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland 310 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland 310 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    (collateral estoppel “‘means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit’”), quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970); State v. Little
  • State v. Saenz 4 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Saenz 4 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    See, , (finding doctrine of collateral estoppel inapplicable because denial of petition to revoke probation not a judgment under Rule 26.1, Ariz. R.Crim.
  • Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    stoppel may not be predicated upon a “verdict” upon which no “judgment” is rendered); , (findings at preliminary injunction hearing not sufficient to permit application of collateral estoppel doctrine because case settled instead of going on to the permanent injunction stage with entry of final judgment); , (collateral estoppel cannot attach to a verdict but requires a judgment entered by the court upon the verdict).
  • State, Dept. of Admin. v. Schallock 941 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1997
  • State, Dept. of Admin. v. Schallock 941 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1997
    (quoting Neely v. State, 210 Tenn.
  • State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
    we held that the denial of a petition to revoke probation, based on the state’s failure to establish a probation violation, did not collaterally estop the state from prosecuting the defendant for sexual assault, even though the sexual assault was the basis for the probation revocation petition.
  • State v. Superior Court 747 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Superior Court 747 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    the court found that a police officer who interviewed the victim of a sexual attack on the evening of the assault could testify that the victim’s statements were consistent with her testimony at trial.
  • 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.
  • State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    However, since our supreme court’s , it is clear that a trial court’s decision on a probation violation proceeding cannot have such collateral estoppel or res judicata effect.
  • 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