A. Every judge retired under this plan may, if physically and mentally able, be subject to call by the supreme court or the chief justice of the supreme court to assist the supreme court, court of appeals or superior court under such directions as the supreme court may give, including the examination of the facts in cases before the court, the examination of authorities cited and the preparation of opinions for and on behalf of the court. The court may order these opinions, to the extent approved by the court, to constitute the opinion of the court. The retired judge may, subject to any rule which the supreme court adopts, perform any duties preliminary to the final disposition of cases insofar as they are not inconsistent with the constitution of this state.
B. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a retired judge who is temporarily called back to the active duties of a judge is entitled to receive the same compensation and expenses as other like active judges less any amount received for that period in retirement benefits.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases, 1989–2003 · leading case:
State v. Davis, 79 P.3d 64 (Ariz. 2003).
State v. Davis, 79 P.3d 64 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 2× “testified that she engaged in sexual conduct on two occasions and the doctor testified that an early February exam showed that T.E. had engaged in sex one week before, around the end of January, during Super Bowl weekend.”
Walls v. Arizona Dep't of Pub. Saf., 826 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “6, § 20 and A.R.S. § 38-813. 1 . James Dean Walls and McAllis Walls filed suit jointly.”
State v. Womack, 847 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “TAYLOR was authorized to participate in this appeal by order of the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, pursuant to art.”
Zeigler v. Kirschner, 781 P.2d 54 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “6, § 20, and A.R.S. § 38-813. 1 . 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in part: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United…”
State v. Bowles, 841 P.2d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “…in this appeal by order of the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 20, and A.R.S. § 38-813.”
Thomas v. Goudreault, 786 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “…appeal by order of the Chief Justice of the Arizona *173 Supreme Court pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 20, and A.R.S. § 38-813.”
Howland v. State, 818 P.2d 1169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “6, § 20, and A.R.S. § 38-813. 1 . Plaintiff does not appeal from the dismissal of his federal claims against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Corrections, and that part of the judgment has become final.”
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Till, 825 P.2d 954 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The trial court’s award of attorneys fees against Till is set aside, and the summary judgment in favor of Farmers is reversed. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
State v. Benson, 833 P.2d 32 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Const, art 6, § 20, and A.R.S. § 38-813.”
White v. Lewis, 804 P.2d 805 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “6, § 20, and A.R.S. § 38-813. LANKFORD, Judge, dissenting.”
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.