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. Rushing, 749 P.2d 910.

42 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    see also State v. Grannis, 18I cannot agree with my colleagues that the overall condition of the car can be reasonably inferred from the post-collision photos.
  • State v. Horak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Horak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (explaining acquittals on certain charges “demonstrate[s] the jury’s careful and proper consideration of the evidence”); (concluding an acquittal on one charge and a lesser- included offense conviction shows prejudicial evidence “did not so inflame the jury as to render it incapable of making critical factual determinations”).
  • In Re Monteith C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • In Re Monteith C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (considering the jury’s decision to convict a defendant of lesser-included offenses as indication that the challenged evidence “did not so inflame the jury as to render it incapable of making critical factual determinations”).
  • State v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶7 “Ordinarily, the owner of property is competent to give an opinion of its value.”
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 33 (App. 2000) (reasoning jury’s acquittal on some charges “undermined” defendant’s argument of prejudice); (concluding that 4 STATE v. WILSON Decision of the Court jury’s acquittal on one charge and conviction of lesser-included offense demonstrated the alleged prejudicial evidence “did not so inflame the jury as to r
  • State v. Piotrowski 315 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Piotrowski 315 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 12 , disapproved of on other grounds, , we construed the meaning of nearly identical language in A.R.S.
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    entitled to determine, as a matter of common sense, that the palm trees were worth $100 or more.” -5, -14 (1988) (modifying theft conviction because insufficient evidence of value).
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    Stroud, 103 P.3d at 913-14
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
    (lack of juror passion indicated by conviction of lesser-included offense).
  • In re Sabino R. 10 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In re Sabino R. 10 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    State v. Astorga, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Wolter 3 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Wolter 3 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    P. 31.17(d); , 57 n. 1, , 6 n. 1 (1995); -5 , -14 (1988).
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
    (“the owner of property is competent to give an opinion of its value”).
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Rowan 859 P.2d 737 Ariz. 1993
  • Distinguished State v. Rowan 859 P.2d 737 Ariz. 1993
    distinguishable, we find it disposi-tive.
  • State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    our supreme court held that the trial court may take judicial notice of its own files to find probationary status.
  • State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    *291 We believe the state’s , is misplaced because, as the following from the supreme court’s opinion makes clear, the defendant in Rushing , unlike the case sub judice, was specifically advised by the trial court that his sentence would be affected by a finding that he was on probation: Obviously mindful that the li
  • State v. Maximo 821 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Maximo 821 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Richards 804 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Richards 804 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Salazar 774 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Salazar 774 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    For example, , holds that evidence of retail and wholesale prices is admissible to “fix the range within which the jury may find fair market val *573 ue.”