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. Green, 29 P.3d 271.

65 citing documents.

  • State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    ¶ 18 “When interpreting an evidentiary rule that predominantly echoes its fedei’al countex’part, we often look to the latter for guidance.” , , (“In interpreting Arizona’s evidentially x’ules, we look to federal law when our x’ule is identical to the corresponding federal rule____”).
  • FRED MILLER M.D., Et Ux. v. LUZ BARRERA, MUTUAL INSURANCE CO 130 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • FRED MILLER M.D., Et Ux. v. LUZ BARRERA, MUTUAL INSURANCE CO 130 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    Note (purpose of Rule 408 is to promote “the public policy favoring the compromise settlement of disputes” and encouraging parties to communicate freely); (“When interpreting an evidentiary rule that predominantly echoes its federal counterpart, we often look to the latter for guidance.”).
  • State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    ¶ 7 , (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montaño, ¶ 66 , (it is within the trial court’s discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on di
  • State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    was surely unattributable to the error.’ ” ¶ 21 , ( , ).
  • State v. Rivera 86 P.3d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Rivera 86 P.3d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 21 , (“Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it ‘did not contribute to or affect the verdict.’ ” (citation omitted)).
  • State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Hernandez v. State 52 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2002
  • Hernandez v. State 52 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2002
    4 , 498 ¶ 10, (“When interpreting an evidentiary rule that predominantly echoes its federal counterpart, we often look to the latter for guidance.”).