Arizona Supreme Court· 6/20/2001
State v. Ring
Citations
- 25 P.3d 1139
- 200 Ariz. 267
- 350 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 5
- 2001 Ariz. LEXIS 90
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that Apprendi did not overrule Walton
- finding that Apprendi did not overrule Walton
- “[Kjilling Magoch was for no other comprehensible reason than to facilitate the robbery.”
- \[K]illing Magoch was for no other comprehensible reason than to facilitate the robbery.\
- a trial court’s exclusion of third-party culpability evidence does not constitute harmful error if the evidence “would not have exculpated Defendant for his role in both planning and committing the crimes”
- referring to a \separate evidentiary hearing\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Feldman, Martone, Zlaket, Jones, McGregor
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
83 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 2002-06-24· cited 4,683×
- Schriro v. SummerlinSupreme Court· 2004-06-24· cited 2,419×
- State v. RingArizona Supreme Court· 2003-04-03· cited 325×
- United States v. Juan Sanchez-Cervantes, AKA Hugo Quirox, Quiroc, Quiroz, Quiroz Trejo, and Quiroz TapiaNinth Circuit· 2002-03-15· cited 241×
- Bottoson v. MooreSupreme Court of Florida· 2002-10-24· cited 192×
- State v. SotoSupreme Court of Kansas· 2014-04-11· cited 135×
- People v. SwiftIllinois Supreme Court· 2002-11-21· cited 131×
- State v. GlasselArizona Supreme Court· 2005-08-10· cited 129×
- State v. GalesNebraska Supreme Court· 2003-03-28· cited 124×
- State v. TuckerArizona Supreme Court· 2003-05-05· cited 101×
- State v. CruzArizona Supreme Court· 2008-04-21· cited 98×
- State v. CanezArizona Supreme Court· 2002-02-14· cited 94×
- Warren Wesley Summerlin v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of CorrectionsNinth Circuit· 2003-09-02· cited 93×
- Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr. v. A.J. Arave, WardenNinth Circuit· 2002-02-06· cited 89×
- State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn HausnerArizona Supreme Court· 2012-07-10· cited 89×
- Cox v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2002-05-23· cited 85×
- State v. CañezArizona Supreme Court· 2002-02-14· cited 80×
- State of Az v. Christopher George Theodore LamarArizona Supreme Court· 2003-07-17· cited 77×
- Borchardt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2001-12-13· cited 74×
- State v. Don ChappellArizona Supreme Court· 2010-08-03· cited 73×
Cites
39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court· 2000-06-26· cited 28,372×
- Enmund v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1982-07-02· cited 2,349×
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1999-03-24· cited 2,200×
- Tison v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1987-04-21· cited 1,617×
- Walton v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1990-08-30· cited 1,614×
- Scott v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1978-06-26· cited 1,598×
- Cabana v. BullockSupreme Court· 1986-01-22· cited 536×
- State v. GretzlerArizona Supreme Court· 1983-01-06· cited 374×
- State v. AtwoodArizona Supreme Court· 1992-07-10· cited 361×
- Poland v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1986-05-05· cited 338×
- State v. Amaya-RuizArizona Supreme Court· 1990-12-14· cited 276×
- State v. TrostleArizona Supreme Court· 1997-12-24· cited 187×
- State v. HydeArizona Supreme Court· 1996-07-09· cited 167×
- State v. GreeneArizona Supreme Court· 1998-10-20· cited 158×
- State v. CorrellArizona Supreme Court· 1986-01-28· cited 157×
- State v. FulminanteArizona Supreme Court· 1989-07-11· cited 146×
- State v. BrewerArizona Supreme Court· 1992-01-28· cited 142×
- State v. FulminanteArizona Supreme Court· 1999-03-02· cited 125×
- State v. Van AdamsArizona Supreme Court· 1999-06-18· cited 112×
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.