State v. Fallon

How courts have described this case

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

• unnecessary to address constitutional questions raised in ex post facto argument because issue could be resolved on state law grounds
• unnecessary to reach constitutional question of alleged ex post facto violation because case could be decided on alternate state law ground of § 1-244
• unnecessary to address constitutional questions raised in ex post facto argument because issue could be resolved on state law grounds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• O'BRIEN v. Escher
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2003-08-02· cited 23×
• State v. Reidhead
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1986-12-30· cited 11×
• State v. Winton
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1987-01-22· cited 7×
• State v. Griffin
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2002-11-21· cited 2×
• State v. Watkins
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1989-06-27· cited 1×
• State v. Arana
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1992-04-07· cited 1×
• Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2003-03-24
• Peterson v. Superior Court
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1992-08-27

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Sweet
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1985-01-16· cited 136×
• State v. Fallon
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1986-03-11· cited 6×
• State v. Schroeder
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1985-10-01· cited 2×