State v. Mays

How courts have described this case

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

• applying the mailbox rale to show notice of a closed bank account to support a conviction of drawing checks with the intent to defraud
• applying the mailbox rule to show notice of a closed bank account to support a conviction of drawing checks with the intent to defraud
• stating that “[i]t is the settled law of this state that there is a strong presumption that a letter properly addressed,, stamped .and deposited in the United States mail will reach the addressee” and noting that Hagner provides “ample support” for the rule “in the criminal law”
• “there is a strong presumption that a letter properly addressed, stamped and deposited in the United States mail will reach the addressee”
• “If counsel did not understand the court’s ruling, the failure to specify distinctly is not error where no request is made to be more specific.”
• we may conclude the superior court erred in failing to rule only after an attorney insisted a ruling be made and the court subsequently “failed or refused to make one, or . . . made a ruling [which] . . . was erroneous”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Andrews v. Blake
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2003-05-20· cited 441×
• Commonwealth v. Crosscup
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1975-12-17· cited 46×
• Lee v. State
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2008-04-25· cited 28×
• Oney v. Barnes
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1967-05-26· cited 9×
• Hackin v. Gaynes
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1968-01-11· cited 7×
• State v. Baca
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1992-06-04· cited 4×
• State v. Langston
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1980-11-18· cited 4×
• State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2015-12-14· cited 3×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hagner v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1932-04-11· cited 954×
• Rosenthal v. Walker
  Supreme Court· 1884-03-31· cited 298×
• Kane v. Fields Corner Grille, Inc.
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1961-01-09· cited 57×
• Consolidated Motors, Inc. v. Skousen
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1941-01-13· cited 37×
• Mohr v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1958-03-27· cited 27×
• Merchants & Manufacturers Ass'n v. First National Bank
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1932-10-03· cited 17×
• United States ex rel. Helmecke v. Rice
  S.D. Texas· 1922-04-14· cited 17×
• Roy Hancil Whitney, Jr. v. United States
  Fifth Circuit· 1964-03-30· cited 9×
• J. I. Case Co. v. Sinning Bros. Motor Co.
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1933-05-06· cited 6×