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. Robles, 908 P.2d 483.

15 citing documents.

  • CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
    ¶ 21 (2020); (stating that each provision in the Constitution should be construed as part of the whole and harmonized to prevent conflict); (stating that the Speak Freely Clause does not have primacy over other constitutional provisions); (Wash.
  • Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Bennett v. Brownlow 90 P.3d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    No. 1 v. Green, , (public school considered nonpublic forum); , (public sidewalks remain public forums throughout residential neighborhoods).
  • State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    269-70, , 485-86 (App. 1995).
  • State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    ¶¶21, 24, ¶¶21, 24 (App. 2002) (although Arizona’s civil forfeiture statutes “implicate First Amendment concerns,” they “contain no reference to the content of speech or expressive materials” and, therefore, are “content- neutral”); (finding Arizona’s residential picketing statute, A.R.S.
  • State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” McLamb, 188 Ariz. at 9 , 932 P.2d at 274 ( , ) ( , ) (internal quotations omitted)(alteration original).
  • State v. Mutschler 65 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    The injunction against Cahill was content-neutral because the injunction barred any “in person” contact with LaFaro and was therefore applicable “[without regard to the message conveyed.”
  • Webb v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Bd. of Medical Examiners 48 P.3d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    ‘Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.’” , (citation omitted) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110 , 92 S.Ct.
  • A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Department 42 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    In State v. Baldwin, for example, this court determined that the government has a significant interest in protecting “residential privacy” and “ ‘the quiet enjoyment of the home.’ ” , 272, , 488 (App.1995) (quoting Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 486 , 108 S.Ct.
  • State v. Musser 954 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    NARROWING CONSTRUCTION “Before declaring a statute unconstitutional, a court should consider whether a limiting construction would cure its constitutional infirmity.” , ( , ).
  • 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
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” , ( , ).