DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dodd v. Boies, 357 P.2d 144.

32 citing documents.

  • McAvoy v. Logan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • McAvoy v. Logan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (“[P]urely speculative inferences or conclusions do not constitute substantial evidence[.]” (citation omitted)).
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-84984 674 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1983
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-84984 674 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1983
    Similarly, , we stated that “for a magistrate properly to conclude there is ‘probable cause’ defendant committed the offense for which he is charged, there must be ‘ * * * more evidence for, (rather) than against’, defendant’s guilt....” (-04
  • State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 647 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
  • State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 647 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
    -404 , State v. Frye, 245 N.W.2d 878, 880-81 (N.D.1976); Hamer v. United States, 259 F.2d 274, 282-83 (9th Cir. 1958), cert.
  • State v. Emery 642 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Emery 642 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1982
    In Arizona, *506 probable cause has been defined as “such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of guilt.” , Davis v. Superior Court, 175 Cal.App.2d 8, 22-23
  • Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company 539 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company 539 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • City of Tucson v. Citizens Utilities Water Company 498 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • City of Tucson v. Citizens Utilities Water Company 498 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    stated: “It is well established ‘purely speculative inferences or conclusions do not constitute substantial evidence’, * * * and ‘an inference cannot * * * stand in the face * * * of another inference equally reasonable’ * * * ”, In International Ry.
  • State v. Woody 496 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Woody 496 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1972
  • Yavapai County Attorney v. Mahoney 491 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1971
  • Yavapai County Attorney v. Mahoney 491 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1971
  • In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Drury v. Burr 474 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • Drury v. Burr 474 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    ourt has defined probable cause to mean that there is more evidence for, rather than against, a defendant’s guilt, and “there must exist such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” Rendel v. Mummert, Ariz.
  • Rendel v. Mummert 474 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1970
  • Rendel v. Mummert 474 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Terrell 445 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Terrell 445 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1968
    7, states that: “The magistrate, if he holds the defendant to answer, shall enter an order in his docket to the following effect: ‘It appearing to me that the crime of (stating generally the nature, and as nearly as may be the time and place where the crime was committed) * * *(Emphasis supplied) In application of Williams, , , quoted with approval in Dodd *455 v. Boies, , , we said: “However, in a charge as grave as that of first degree murder, it would seem that a magistrate conducting a preli
  • State v. Abbott 442 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Abbott 442 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    probable cause’ defendant committed the offense for which he is charged, there must be ‘ * * * more evidence for, (rather) than against’, defendant’s guilt, (citations omitted) and there must exist ‘such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ (citations omitted)” 403, 404
  • State v. Bearden 405 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Bearden 405 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1965
  • Hafenstein v. Burr 376 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1962
  • Hafenstein v. Burr 376 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1962
    ead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ * * * Thus, although the State need not, at a preliminary hearing, present as much proof as would be required to sustain a conviction * * *, it must do more than create a mere suspicion that defendant is guilty of the offense for which he is charged.” , .