State v. Estrada

How courts have described this case

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

• “[P]ossession of the paraphernalia, like possession of the methamphetamine, fell within the probationary requirements of A.R.S. § 13-901.01.”
• “The instruments and devices that amount to paraphernalia are not unlawful per se . . . [they] may constitute drug paraphernalia, but only to the extent that they are used or intended to be used in conjunction with a controlled substance–that is, an unlawful drug.”
• review granted Sept. 26, 2000

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Ossana
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2001-02-28· cited 28×
• Hernandez v. Lynch
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2007-10-02· cited 21×
• State v. Guillory
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2001-02-28· cited 18×
• Keenen v. Biles
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2001-01-02· cited 7×
• State v. Roman
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2001-09-18· cited 4×
• State v. Estrada
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2001-11-15· cited 3×
• Tanque Verde Unified School District No. 13 v. Bernini
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2003-09-23· cited 3×
• State v. Hylton
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2002-04-30· cited 2×
• TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2003-09-23
• TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 13 OF PIMA COUNTY v. TANQUE VERDE COALITION, INC.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2003-09-23