Landmark AZ Legal Cases

Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436(1966) , was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court which was decided on June 13, 1966. The Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police.

Following the Miranda decision, the nation's police departments were required to inform arrested persons of their rights under the ruling, termed a Miranda warning.

The Miranda decision was widely criticized when it came down, as many felt it was unfair to inform suspected criminals of their rights, as outlined in the decision. Richard M. Nixon and other conservatives denounced Miranda for undermining the efficiency of the police, and argued the ruling would contribute to an increase in crime

Miranda was undermined by several subsequent decisions which seemed to grant several exceptions to the "Miranda warnings", undermining its claim to be a necessary corollary of the Fifth Amendment. As the years passed, however, Miranda grew to be familiar and widely accepted. Due to the prevalence of American television police dramas made since that decision in which the police read suspects their "Miranda rights", it has become an expected element of arrest procedure.

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), changed the legal profession and, for that matter, all other professions on a national basis. The significance of the Bates decision was well explained by Mark Ballard in an article in the National Law Journal, on September 25, 2002. He called it "The Little Ad that Changed Everything"

The 1977 case challenging the placement of a small display legal advertisement in the Arizona Republic had a profound impact on U.S. law practice. It permitted lawyers to advertise. It was expected that, if advertising was permitted, consumer-based law firms would grow much larger, thereby opening the legal system to people who otherwise have no access to it. What was not expected was the extent of advertising among the large corporate firms. With the old-line firms embracing the business model, just as Bates and O'Steen did 40 years ago, the survival of lawyer advertising seems assured.

Cases Involving Disputes Over Water Rights

Courtroom battles over rights to water, a precious resource in the desert, have long been an integral part of Maricopa County's legal history. According to Arizona historian James H. McClintock, the decision of Judge Joseph H. Kibbey on March 31, 1892, set an important precedent in the territory because it was the first time "the right of appropriation of water for irrigation" was determined. Kibbey's decision was landmark, but did not prevent nearly continuous litigation through the 1890's and into the twentieth century. In 1910, Hurley v. Abbott was decided by Judge Edward Kent. This decision, based on principles established by Judge Kibbey, has governed water use in the Valley ever since. In the 1890's, a major change began to occur in farm production in the Valley. Grain once had been the principal crop. Now, according to the Phoenix Herald, the valley was becoming a "land of the vine, the fig, the date, the olive, the apple, pear, peach, nectarine, apricot, and pomegranate-the land of oil, wine, raisins, preserved and dried fruits in which there was untold wealth."

If you are knowledgeable concerning other important Arizona legal decisions, send us your ideas concerning what other cases should be included. This web page is a work in progress.

For a consultation with the Law Offices of William D. Black, call 602.910.6144 or 1.888.349.3599 or contact us online.