Dorian CACAVAS, Mark Calaluca, Claudio Guevara, Shannon Harris, Rafael Lopez, Manuel Morales, Linda Oldham, Timothy Riley, Nate Rostance, Patrick Shelby, Rod Silverman, Gregory Withey, Alta Grover, Kartina Montano, Petitioners, v. the Honorable Ann BOWEN, a Magistrate for the City Court of Tucson, in the State of Arizona, County of Pima, Respondent, and the STATE of Arizona, Real Party in Interest

1991-03-19 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · United States

read the judgment

2What it rests on

2Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19921 judgments10 years silent20021 judgments

2 judgments have relied on it, across 1992–2002

first 1992 · last 2002 · busiest 1992 (1 judgments)

2002-09-27Charles J. CONRAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, AppelleeCourt of Appeals of Alaska 1992-12-10STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Thomas R. MARTIN, AppellantCourt of Appeals of Arizona

What it rests on

1989-04-06Donald Lee DESMOND, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of MARICOPA COUNTY, and the Honorable Rudolph J. Gerber, a Judge Thereof; Mesa City Court, and the Honorable Harold Reeb, a Judge Thereof, Respondents, and STATE of Arizona, by and Through the MESA CITY PROSECUTOR, Respondent/Real Party in Interest; Robert Ward DAVID, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of YAVAPAI COUNTY, and the Honorable Richard Anderson, a Judge Thereof; Prescott City Court, and the Honorable Robert W. Kuebler, a Magistrate Thereof, Respondents, and STATE of Arizona, by and Through the PRESCOTT CITY PROSECUTOR, Respondent/Real Party in InterestArizona Supreme Court 1983-12-15Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPAArizona Supreme Court

10 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.