Court of Appeals of Arizona· 11/4/2004

State v. Estrada

Citations

100 P.3d 452
209 Ariz. 287
438 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 7
2004 Ariz. App. LEXIS 164

How courts have described this case

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

stating the issue of whether a search violated the Fourth Amendment was a legal conclusion requiring de novo review
medical blood draw exception does not apply “when a person is receiving medical treatment against his or her will”
“Whether a private citizen acted as a state agent is determined on a case-by-case basis . . . .”
where defendant consented to medical treatment and then revoked consent and, by implication, recognizing the opposite could occur
where defendant consented to medical treatment and then revoked consent and, by implication, recognizing the opposite could occur
“[T]he trial court, not this court, determines the credibility of the witnesses.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flórez, Pelander, Brammer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.