Arizona Supreme Court· 11/9/1967
State v. Bradley
Citations
- 433 P.2d 273
- 102 Ariz. 482
- 1967 Ariz. LEXIS 299
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that presumption of continued incompetency is “outweighed” if, inter alia, “evidence of restoration to competency . . . is accepted as satisfactory . . . by the court” (emphasis added)
- providing that the State overcomes the presumption of incompetency when restoration evidence “is accepted as satisfactory by counsel for the accused, the prosecution, and by the court on the basis of the record before it” (emphasis added)
- The presumption is outweighed if evidence of restoration to competency “is accepted as satisfactory . . . by the court.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Udall, Bernstein, McFarland, Struckmeyer, Lockwood
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. BlazakArizona Supreme Court· 1969-12-08· cited 51×
- Atwell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1977-10-04· cited 49×
- State v. WilliamsArizona Supreme Court· 1979-03-20· cited 43×
- State v. MalumphyArizona Supreme Court· 1969-12-03· cited 29×
- State v. EvansArizona Supreme Court· 1969-05-28· cited 27×
- State v. TilleryArizona Supreme Court· 1971-02-19· cited 26×
- Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY.Arizona Supreme Court· 1986-06-24· cited 26×
- State v. OhtaArizona Supreme Court· 1977-03-16· cited 24×
- State of Arizona v. Anthony LewisCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2014-12-10· cited 21×
- State v. VerdugoArizona Supreme Court· 1975-10-08· cited 18×
- State v. HartfordArizona Supreme Court· 1981-11-04· cited 18×
- State v. MessierCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1977-03-17· cited 16×
- State v. WilliamsArizona Supreme Court· 1973-11-15· cited 14×
- State v. ZappiaCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1968-12-13· cited 12×
- State Ex Rel. Miller v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1997-05-08· cited 12×
- State v. FloresCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1969-05-15· cited 10×
- State v. HehmanArizona Supreme Court· 1974-03-27· cited 9×
- State v. BlazakArizona Supreme Court· 1973-12-06· cited 9×
- State v. MillerArizona Supreme Court· 1969-03-26· cited 8×
- State v. KroupaCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1972-01-20· cited 7×
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Dusky v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1960-04-18· cited 3,197×
- Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court· 1966-03-21· cited 3,039×
- United States Ex Rel. Smith v. BaldiSupreme Court· 1953-02-09· cited 253×
- State v. SchantzArizona Supreme Court· 1965-06-23· cited 126×
- Nathan Thomas v. W. K. Cunningham, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State PenitentiaryFourth Circuit· 1963-01-08· cited 112×
- State v. ThomasArizona Supreme Court· 1954-10-18· cited 81×
- Gunther v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1954-07-01· cited 71×
- State v. EssmanArizona Supreme Court· 1965-06-23· cited 65×
- Contee v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1954-07-15· cited 50×
- State v. SilvasArizona Supreme Court· 1962-06-27· cited 22×
- State v. CravinArizona Supreme Court· 1964-10-14· cited 20×
- State v. GraningerArizona Supreme Court· 1964-06-17· cited 18×
- State v. ReidArizona Supreme Court· 1960-01-27· cited 15×
- State v. MaynardArizona Supreme Court· 1966-10-06· cited 14×
- State v. BuchananArizona Supreme Court· 1963-05-22· cited 12×
- Fralick v. StateArizona Supreme Court· 1923-02-06· cited 12×
- Charles C. Marshall v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1964-06-30· cited 10×
- Joseph W. Hunter v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1963-09-26· cited 9×
- Joseph W. Hunter v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1964-10-15· cited 6×
- State v. StracuzziArizona Supreme Court· 1955-10-31· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.