Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Territory of Arizona, 125 P. 717.

40 citing documents.

Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Material is defined as “something of solid or weighty character; substantial; of consequence; not to be dispensed with.” Id., ( , 125 P. 717, 721 (1912)).
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Renaissance Homes 679 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Renaissance Homes 679 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
125 P. 717 (1912), our supreme court defined material as "something of solid or weighty character; substantial; of consequence; not to be dispensed with".
State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
P. 111 (1927); , 125 P. 717 (1912).
State v. Kruchten 417 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
State v. Kruchten 417 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
§ 13-454 provides: “Upon a trial for murder, the commission of the homicide by defendant being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation, or circumstances that justify or excuse it, devolves upon defendant, * * *.” , 125 P. 717 , a first degree murder in which the jury imposed the death penalty, the argument was made that certain “matters ought to be heard as some evidence to weigh with the jury in fixing the quantum of the punishment.” After an extensive discussion, this Court c
State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
Application of Williams 333 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1958
Application of Williams 333 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1958
Singh v. State, supra; , 125 P. 717 .
State v. Wallace 319 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1957
State v. Wallace 319 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1957
The trial court apparently denied the defendant the right of cross-examination of the state’s , 125 P. 717 , where this court laid down the doctrine that where the law of self-defense is not in the case, evidence of the hostile feelings or acts of the deceased, or previous quarrels, is irrelevant and inadmissible on the part of the defendant.
State v. Johnson 211 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1949
State v. Johnson 211 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1949
The court heretofore has held — “It is just as serious in t'he eye of the law to murder a bad man as a good man.” , 125 P. 717, 720 .
Alvarado v. State of Arizona 164 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1945
Alvarado v. State of Arizona 164 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1945
We have held that an erroneous instruction on an issue unsupported by evidence is harmless, , 125 Pac.
Antone v. State of Arizona 65 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1937
Antone v. State of Arizona 65 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1937
672 , 67 A. L. R. 129; , 125 Pac.
Sullivan v. State of Arizona 55 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1936
Sullivan v. State of Arizona 55 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1936
Judd v. State 16 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1932
Judd v. State 16 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1932
672 , 67 A. L. R. 129; , 125 Pac.
Foster v. State 294 P. 268 Ariz. 1930
Foster v. State 294 P. 268 Ariz. 1930
672, 677 , we considered the precise point here made, and held: “When the facts as disclosed by all the evidence in the case show murder in the first degree or nothing — no mitigation, excuse, or justification — , 125 Pac.
Singh v. State 280 P. 672 Ariz. 1929
Singh v. State 280 P. 672 Ariz. 1929
When the facts as disclosed by all the evidence in the case show murder in the first degree or nothing— no mitigation, excuse or justification — , 125 Pac.
Murphy v. State 264 P. 685 Ariz. 1928
Murphy v. State 264 P. 685 Ariz. 1928
Burgen v. State 256 P. 111 Ariz. 1927
Burgen v. State 256 P. 111 Ariz. 1927
Flowers v. State 229 P. 1028 Ariz. 1924
Mendez v. State 229 P. 1032 Ariz. 1924
Mendez v. State 229 P. 1032 Ariz. 1924
Flowers v. State 229 P. 1028 Ariz. 1924
The unprovoked killing of a bad man is no less murder than the killing of the most peaceful and law-abiding person in the community.” 30 Corpus Juris, p. 174; , 125 Pac.
Nelson v. State 141 P. 704 Ariz. 1914
Nelson v. State 141 P. 704 Ariz. 1914