Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Llanos de Oro Mining & Milling Co. v. McComas, 167 P. 79.

16 citing documents.

State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“The common law confined extortion to the unlawful taking by an officer, by color of his office, of any money or thing of value that is not due to him, or more than is due, or before it is due.”
State v. Lake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“The presumption of innocence remains throughout the case and until it is finally submitted to the jury and by the return of their verdict the defendant is found guilty.”); but see State v. Conley, 2 CA-CR 2021-0111, 2023 WL 329233 at *6, ¶¶ 29-30 (App. Jan.
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
A threat can “be expressed by words, gestures, or actions,” and “[n]o precise words are necessary,” 168 P. 508, 510 (1917).
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
All that is necessary is that the alleged threat be definite and understandable to the mind of ordinary intelligence.” , 168 P. 508, 510 (1917) (implied threat to accuse victim’s son of crime if victim did not transfer property was sufficient to support extortion conviction).
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
168 P. 508, 512 (1917); see also Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, 1 Weinstein’s Evidence 11103[06], at 103-70 to 81 (1992) (listing factors courts examine in determining whether error was harmless).
Lake Havasu Irrigation & Drainage District v. Dubois 573 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
1 -203 , 168 P. 508 , 511 — 512 (1917), holding an instruction non prejudicial because it was not understandable and was “a mere jingle of words.” In any event, in this case there was evidence in the record that drivers normally thought of Saratoga as a through street.
State v. Prell 517 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
168 P. 508 (1917), our Supreme Court sustained a conviction of extortion in the securing of the victim’s signature to a bill of sale of cattle.
State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
15 P. 673 (1887); , 20 P. 94 (1889); , 35 P. 1059 (1894); , 56 P. 738 (1899); , 149 P. 380 (1915); , 168 P. 508 (1917); , 225 P. 482 (1924); , 247 P. 129 (1926)
State v. Essman 403 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1965
§ 22-211 provides: “The law governing procedure and practice in the superior court so far as applicable and when not otherwise specially prescribed, shall govern procedure and practice in justice of the peace courts, except that the justice of the peace shall not charge the jury.” , 268 P. 611 ; , 168 P. 508 .
State v. Carter 399 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
168 P. 508 ; , 208 P. 412 .
State v. Little 350 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1960
Burgunder v. State of Arizona 103 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1940
135 : “ ‘Cases may be reversed in this court only where the record affirmatively shows error prejudicial to some substantial right of a defendant.’ “ , 168 Pac.
Browning v. State of Arizona 87 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1939
Strickland v. State 294 P. 617 Ariz. 1930
Hann v. State 247 P. 129 Ariz. 1926
West v. State 208 P. 412 Ariz. 1922
135 : “Cases may be reversed in this court only where the record affirmatively shows error prejudicial to some substantial right of a defendant.” , 168 Pac.