Court of Appeals of Arizona· 5/14/1991
State v. Nichols
Citations
- 819 P.2d 995
- 169 Ariz. 409
- 86 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 67
- 1991 Ariz. App. LEXIS 104
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[T]he fact that a statute designed primarily to serve remedial purposes incidentally serves the purposes of punishment as well does not mean that the statute results in punishment for double jeopardy purposes.”
- post-Halper decision upholding proceeding similar to that challenged here
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: James C. Carruth
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. HigaHawaii Supreme Court· 1995-05-17· cited 150×
- Luk v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1995-11-27· cited 89×
- State v. StrongSupreme Court of Vermont· 1992-01-10· cited 77×
- State v. HansenNebraska Supreme Court· 1996-01-26· cited 75×
- State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. KennedyNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1995-10-18· cited 75×
- State v. ZerkelCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1995-07-28· cited 60×
- State v. MertzSupreme Court of Kansas· 1995-12-08· cited 52×
- Baldwin v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1995-06-23· cited 28×
- State v. YoungNebraska Supreme Court· 1996-03-08· cited 27×
- Schillerstrom v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1994-07-26· cited 21×
- Moser v. Richmond County Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of Georgia· 1993-04-12· cited 20×
- Krall v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-08-21· cited 15×
- State v. ArbonCourt of Appeals of Utah· 1996-01-05· cited 15×
- State v. LomasNevada Supreme Court· 1998-04-02· cited 9×
- Ex Parte MataTex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 1996-06-06· cited 9×
- Marzolf v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1995-11-21· cited 6×
- State v. AckroucheFranklin County Municipal Court· 1995-04-05· cited 6×
- People v. CondarcoCriminal Court of the City of New York· 1995-09-28· cited 4×
- People v. UzquianoNewburgh Justice Court· 1996-03-07· cited 1×
- State ex rel. Dean v. HantmanCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1991-05-16· cited 1×
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court· 1969-06-23· cited 7,763×
- United States v. HalperSupreme Court· 1989-05-15· cited 1,945×
- Grady v. CorbinSupreme Court· 1990-05-29· cited 1,620×
- MacKey v. MontrymSupreme Court· 1979-06-25· cited 746×
- Campbell v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court· 1971-01-15· cited 184×
- University of Arizona Health Sciences Center v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court· 1983-07-20· cited 115×
- People v. EspositoIllinois Supreme Court· 1988-03-23· cited 87×
- Heddan v. DirkswagerSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1983-07-01· cited 66×
- United States v. Walter Michael RisingTenth Circuit· 1989-02-08· cited 65×
- Deaner v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia· 1969-10-13· cited 63×
- Alex v. StateAlaska Supreme Court· 1971-04-26· cited 62×
- Ruge v. KovachIndiana Supreme Court· 1984-08-30· cited 47×
- Epps v. BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLECommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-10-25· cited 44×
- Sherrill v. Department of TransportationArizona Supreme Court· 1990-10-09· cited 29×
- State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C.Arizona Supreme Court· 1987-10-01· cited 18×
- Mullet v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1991-03-19· cited 16×
- State Ex Rel. Ross v. NanceArizona Supreme Court· 1990-05-24· cited 14×
- Taylor v. SherrillCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-09-25· cited 10×
- Traylor v. ThorneycroftCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1982-09-28· cited 9×
- Loughran v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPAArizona Supreme Court· 1985-04-22· cited 8×
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.