A party against whom a decision has been rendered or against whom a motion for dismissal of the action has been granted in the court of appeals may file in such court a motion for rehearing after the rendition of the decision or order of dismissal, setting forth with particularity the reasons why he believes the decision or order of dismissal erroneous. The opposite party may file his response to such motion. If the motion is denied, and the party against whom the decision or order has been rendered desires a further review by the supreme court, he shall serve upon the opposite party and file with the clerk of the division a statement that he desires such review. The clerk of the division shall thereupon transmit the record in the case to the clerk of the supreme court. The supreme court shall either grant or deny the request for review. No further briefs or oral argument shall be filed or had unless the supreme court so directs. If no request for review by the supreme court has been filed, or upon the receipt from the clerk of the supreme court of notification that the request for review has been denied, the clerk of the division shall, if the matter has been decided by formal opinion, issue the mandate of the court of appeals, if no written formal opinion has been rendered then by certified copy of the order of the court.
Notes of Decisions
David Stambaugh v. Mark Killian, 398 P.3d 574 (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 4× “at 358 ¶ 20 (Jones, J., dissenting). ¶6 We granted review because this case presents an issue of statewide importance that is likely to recur.”
State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela, 371 P.3d 627 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24. II. DISCUSSION ¶9 We review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion, considering the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the ruling.”
State v. Don Jacob Havatone, 389 P.3d 1251 (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 4× “27, 2015) (“[T]he search was objectively reasonable in either state, so we—like the trial court—need not decide whether Arizona or Nevada law applies.”
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 4× “¶7 Holle petitioned for review regarding the court of appeals’ finding of harmless error, and the State filed a cross-petition for review regarding the court’s application of § 13-1407(E).”
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L., 365 P.3d 353 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 2× “¶ 8 We granted review to address whether the court of appeals erred in relying on Jose M.”
Am. Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., 396 P.3d 600 (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24. II. ¶8 The parties’ MVA contained two provisions that are pertinent here: (d) Applicable Law.”
First Am. Title Ins. v. Johnson Bank, 372 P.3d 292 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24. II. ¶8 We review a summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered.”
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 710 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 4× “6, § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 12-120.24. We consider two issues with regard to fee awards to a successful appellant: (1) Under Rule 21(c) Ariz.”
Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24 (2003). II. A. ¶ 7 The Arizona Constitution commands that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments "shall be separate and distinct, and no one of such departments…”
State of Arizona v. valencia/healer, 386 P.3d 392 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24. II. ¶9 A defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief when “[t]here has been a significant change in the law that if determined to apply to defendant’s case would probably…”
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez, 278 P.3d 1276 (Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Finally, the court noted that the sentencing judge expressly considered Cupis’s confession letter and did not indicate that she had based her sentencing decision on a belief that Gutierrez was the shooter.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005).
· cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. § 12-120.24 (2003). I. ¶2 This case comes to us as a result of almost twenty years of legal skirmishing between the City and owners of advertising billboards.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120.24(2003) — 2 cases
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.