State v. Fridley

How courts have described this case

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

• “This constitutional provision is designed to prevent amendments by merely striking out or adding sentences in a contextual vacuum.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Berry
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1982-06-22· cited 23×
• City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1999-04-29· cited 17×
• State v. Coury
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1981-01-27· cited 3×
• State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1989-03-28· cited 2×
• State v. Schneider
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1982-11-26· cited 2×
• Devvy Kidd v. Carlos Cascos, Texas Secretary of State
  Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 2015-06-29
• In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2024-03-07

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Wilson
  Supreme Court· 1975-02-25· cited 1,334×
• State v. Kolocotronis
  Washington Supreme Court· 1968-01-25· cited 69×
• State v. Dixon
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1975-11-17· cited 33×
• In Re Miller
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1926-02-27· cited 31×
• State Ex Rel. La Prade v. Cox
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1934-02-24· cited 28×
• State v. Lopez
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1976-05-25· cited 16×
• Cox v. Stults Eagle Drug Co.
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1933-04-29· cited 13×
• State Ex Rel. Hammond v. Kingman Justice Precinct Court
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1960-12-20· cited 10×
• State v. Fayle
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1976-12-20· cited 8×
• State v. Spitz
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1971-07-21· cited 4×