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. Tocco, 750 P.2d 874.

91 citing documents.

  • Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct.
  • Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    (court will not declare void for vagueness every statute it believes “could have been drafted with greater precision”); , (“Due process requires neither perfect notice, absolute precision nor impossible standards.”)
  • City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. McDonald 952 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. McDonald 952 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    -20 , -78 (1988) (court will not declare as void for vagueness every statute it believes “could have been drafted with greater precision”); , (“Due process requires neither perfect notice, absolute precision nor impossible sta
  • State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the court.”); , (“ ‘A defendant whose conduct is clearly proscribed by the core of the statute has no standing to attack the statute.’ ”) (-20 , -78 (1988)); , (“Unless the challenged legislation, by its terms, regulates the exercise of first amendment rights, its constitutionality may not be challenged on the ground that
  • State v. Singer 945 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Singer 945 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    ‘One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.’” , quoting Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Zamora v. Reinstein 915 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1996
  • Zamora v. Reinstein 915 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1996
    -20 , -78 (1988) (We will not “declare invalid for vagueness every statute which we believe could have been drafted with greater precision.”); , (“Due process requires neither perfect notice, absolute precision nor impossible
  • State v. McCoy 928 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. McCoy 928 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974)
  • State v. Baldwin 908 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Baldwin 908 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    2294, 2298 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Buhman 887 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Buhman 887 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    See, , (A defendant ordinarily lacks standing to challenge a statute on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness unless his conduct falls within the arguably ambiguous area of the statute rather than within its core.).
  • State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Norton v. Superior Court 829 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Norton v. Superior Court 829 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    316 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975)), affirmed as supplemented, , see also Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 , 495 n. 7, 102 S.Ct.
  • State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)
  • State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903, 909 (1983)