A. The supreme court shall discharge the duties imposed and exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the constitution and by law.
B. As a condition of appointment to any paid position in the judicial department that is defined as a noncriminal justice agency under federal law, including nomination for judicial office by the commissions on appellate and trial court appointments pursuant to article VI, sections 37 and 41, Constitution of Arizona, the court shall require each applicant to furnish a full set of fingerprints to enable the court to conduct a criminal background investigation to determine the suitability of the applicant. The court shall submit the completed applicant fingerprint card to the department of public safety. The applicant shall bear the cost of obtaining the applicant's criminal history record information. The cost shall not exceed the actual cost of obtaining the applicant's criminal history record information. Applicant criminal history records checks shall be conducted pursuant to section 41-1750 and Public Law 92-544. The department of public safety is authorized to exchange the submitted applicant fingerprint card information with the federal bureau of investigation for a national criminal history records check.
C. The court may require each person who provides contract or volunteer services in the judicial department that is defined as a noncriminal justice agency under federal law to furnish a full set of fingerprints to enable the court to conduct a criminal background investigation. The court shall submit the person's completed fingerprint card to the department of public safety. The person shall bear the cost of obtaining the person's criminal history record information. The cost shall not exceed the actual cost of obtaining the person's criminal history record information. Criminal history records checks shall be conducted pursuant to section 41-1750 and Public Law 92-544. The department of public safety is authorized to exchange the person's submitted fingerprint card information with the federal bureau of investigation for a national criminal history records check.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 8× “6, § 5(6); see also A.R.S. § 12-102(A) (“The supreme court shall discharge the duties imposed and exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the constitution and by law.”
State v. Walton, 769 P.2d 1017 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 3× “6, § 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-102 and § 13-4031. We affirm the conviction of guilt and sentences on all counts.”
State v. Arredondo, 746 P.2d 484 (Ariz. 1987).
· cites it 2× “6, § 5(3) and A.R.S. §§ 12-102, 13-4031, and -4033. We affirm because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and because our review of the entire record shows no reversible error.”
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa Cnty., 128 P.3d 215 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 5(3), of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-102. The issue is one of statutory construction and is reviewed de novo.”
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 959 P.2d 1256 (Ariz. 1998).
· cites it 2× “VI, § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 12-102. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.”
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller, 485 P.3d 554 (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The court subsequently denied the State’s motion for rehearing, including its request for an evidentiary hearing to explore whether counsel’s failure to challenge the RAJI fell below prevailing professional norms.”
State v. Tocco, 750 P.2d 874 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 2× “6, § 5(3) and A.R.S. §§ 12-102, 13-4031 and -4033. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.”
Pierce v. Casas Adobes Baptist Church, 782 P.2d 1162 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 2× “23, and A.R.S. §§ 12-102 and 12-120.24. FACTS On June 15, 1984, James Anthony Pierce (Tony), age 17, was a passenger in the Casas Adobes Baptist Church van when the driver, an agent of the church, accidentally drove off the roadway and overturned the vehicle.”
State v. Cuffle, 828 P.2d 773 (Ariz. 1992).
· cites it 2× “6, § 5(3), and A.R.S. §§ 12-102 and 13-4033. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case arises out of an unusual set of facts and covers a period of more than seventeen years.”
Tomaris v. State, 224 P.2d 209 (Ariz. 1950).
· cites it 4× “” It is claimed that this contention should be given consideration (because of the fact that members of the highway patrol are not re *149 quired to be of age, to write or read the English Language, to file an oath with the Office of the Secretary of State, etc.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-102(A) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit, 399 P.3d 663 (Ariz. 2017).
“6, § 5(6); see also A.R.S. § 12-102(A) (“The supreme court shall discharge the duties imposed and exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the constitution and by law.”
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller, 485 P.3d 554 (Ariz. 2021).
“The court subsequently denied the State’s motion for rehearing, including its request for an evidentiary hearing to explore whether counsel’s failure to challenge the RAJI fell below prevailing professional norms.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.