State v. Vassar

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that while Rule 14.1 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates arraignment no later than ten days following indictment, the rule does not provide for sanctions; hence, prejudice must be shown
• holding that while Rule 14.1 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates arraignment no later than ten days following indictment, the rule does not provide for sanctions; hence, prejudice must be shown

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Rodriguez
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2003-06-27· cited 45×
• People v. Heral
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1976-01-26· cited 42×
• Borchers v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1992-06-18· cited 11×
• State v. Leenhouts
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2008-06-17· cited 5×
• State v. Chambers
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1975-04-22· cited 2×
• State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2003-06-27
• Russell v. Sheriff
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1976-03-25

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Westbrook v. Arizona
  Supreme Court· 1966-05-02· cited 212×
• Gilbert F. Sieling, Sr. v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison
  Ninth Circuit· 1973-04-23· cited 129×
• State v. Decello
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-09-17· cited 26×
• State v. Bates
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-10-04· cited 26×
• State v. Ellison
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-09-23· cited 21×