DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taylor v. Sherrill, 819 P.2d 921.

33 citing documents.

  • State v. Cope 387 P.3d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Cope 387 P.3d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 5 (App. 2001) (citing Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 497-98 (1984); ).
  • State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (double jeopardy prevents imposition of multiple punishments for same offense).
  • State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (double jeopardy clause prevents imposition of multiple punishments for same offense).
  • State v. Paez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Paez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    The double jeopardy protections of the Fifth Amendment “protect against: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense following acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense following conviction; and (3) multiple punishment for the same offense.” (citations omitted).
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    2536, 2540 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 432-33 (1984); , , , cert.
  • State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    2201 , 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989)
  • Ferreira v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Ferreira v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    2056, 2062 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Leyva 909 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Leyva 909 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    2056, 2062 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); , (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. at 794 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    It said that the record shows that the defendant has not paid the penalty assessed by the commission
  • State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
    (defendant’s double jeopardy arguments based on federal constitution; court will not separately consider state constitution); Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz.. 98, 108, (we ordinarily interpret article 2, § 10 of Arizona Constitution in conformity with United S
  • State v. Duran 901 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Duran 901 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Rondberg v. Arizona Board of Chiropractic Examiners 897 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Rondberg v. Arizona Board of Chiropractic Examiners 897 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    (jeopardy does not attach to proceedings involving civil traffic violations).
  • Schillerstrom v. State 885 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Schillerstrom v. State 885 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    (citing United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct.
  • Hernandez v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Hernandez v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    ("while the Arizona Constitution also contains a double jeopardy clause, Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10, we do not separately discuss it because defendant relied solely on the federal constitution in his arguments to the trial court and the court of appeals”).
  • Fitzgerald v. Superior Court 845 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Fitzgerald v. Superior Court 845 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    This area of the law is fraught with confusion, and continues to produce a “deluge of double jeopardy claims in Arizona trial and appellate courts.” , see also Novak, Edward F., Parallel Proceedings and Double Jeopardy Implications, Arizona Attorney, Vol.