In re Joel R.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statement in Nelson requiring both lights and siren was “pure dictum”
• holding that statement in Nelson requiring both lights and siren was \pure dictum\
• upholding finding of delinquency for unlawful flight where siren not sounded because unnecessary under circumstances
• upholding finding of delinquency for unlawful flight where siren not sounded because unnecessary under circumstances
• holding vehicle need not have activated siren

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Martinez
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2012-08-16· cited 13×
• State v. FIIHR
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2008-12-22· cited 6×
• State v. Martinez
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2012-06-12
• State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2008-12-22

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Nelson
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1985-05-31· cited 13×
• Herderick v. State
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1975-01-23· cited 10×
• In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-123196
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1992-05-28· cited 9×
• Simkins v. Pulley
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1977-09-27· cited 7×
• State v. Schultz
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1979-04-24· cited 6×