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. Sullivan, 200 P.2d 346.

32 citing documents.

  • Crosby v. Hon. fish/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Crosby v. Hon. fish/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    as ‘an act done by one of the parties to carry out an intent, and it must be such as would naturally effect that result; at least, it must be a step toward the execution of the conspiracy.’” -54 (1977) ().
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
    (“Conspiracies cannot be established by suspicions ____ Mere association does not make a conspiracy.”) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Arredondo 746 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Arredondo 746 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
    An overt act has been defined by this Court as: *154 “an act done by one of the parties to carry out an intent, and it must be such as would naturally effect that result; at least, it must be a step toward the execution of the conspiracy.”
  • State v. Aguirre 557 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Aguirre 557 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Estrada 550 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Estrada 550 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    we cited with approval: “ ‘The acts and declarations of a conspirator, when said or done in futherance of the conspiracy and during its continuance, are admissible in evidence, when it is shown that a conspiracy exists and that the defendant against whom the evidence is offered and the person ma
  • State v. Speerschneider 543 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Speerschneider 543 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    790 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring)
  • State v. Skinner 515 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Skinner 515 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1973
    we cited with approval: “ ‘The acts and declarations of a conspirator, when said or done in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its continuance, are admissible in evidence, when it is shown that a conspiracy exists and that the defendant against whom the evidence is offered and the person m
  • State v. Webb 504 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. Webb 504 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    and State v. Cassady, 67 Ariz, 48, the general rule of law that proof of evidence of a conspiracy should precede any declarations of the co-conspirators is not absolute.
  • State v. Bowling 427 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Bowling 427 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    proof of which was held to be insufficient to establish overt acts of conspiracy.
  • State v. Heron 381 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Heron 381 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1963
  • Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n v. Nichols 360 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1961
  • Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n v. Nichols 360 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Westbrook 285 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1954
  • State v. Westbrook 285 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1954
    State v. Sullivan, 1948, , ; 15 C.J.S., Conspiracy, § 35; Section 43-1102, A.C.A.1939.
  • Horn v. Ruess 231 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1951
  • Horn v. Ruess 231 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1951