Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-401 (2026)

Detention hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The victim has the right to be heard at the detention hearing of the person suspected of committing the delinquent act against the victim.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1979–2019 · leading case: Both v. Superior Ct., in & for Cty. of Mohave, 590 P.2d 920 (Ariz. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Both v. Superior Ct., in & for Cty. of Mohave, 590 P.2d 920 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 10× “We need answer only one question in this special action: Was the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction appropriate under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, A.R.S. §§ 8-401, et seq.? The facts necessary for a resolution of this matter are as follows.”
Tracy v. Superior Court, 810 P.2d 1030 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 4× “1987) (Indian reservations are territories or possessions of the United States within the meaning of Arizona's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, A.R.S. §§ 8-401 through 8-424); Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v.”
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 4× “The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act The UCCJA is a uniform act, adopted in some form by all 50 states, that establishes which court has subject matter jurisdiction in interstate child custody disputes.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Immediately thereafter, the McGoughs filed a motion to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, A.R.S. §§ 8-401 to 8-424 (1984 Supp.), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 712 P.2d 431 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 2× “The McGoughs filed a motion to dismiss the dependency petitions, arguing lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, A.R.S. §§ 8-401 -424, and the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.”
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz Cnty., 731 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Petitioner timely filed this special action asking this court to order the trial court to grant petitioner’s motions to vacate temporary custody and for abstention, and mo *302 tion for finding of inconvenient forum because the trial court abused its discretion in denying…”
Leon v. Numkena, 689 P.2d 566 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Finally, the wife argues that even assuming the Hopi Tribal Court had jurisdiction to enter the divorce decree and child custody order, the Yuma County Superior Court had jurisdiction to modify the custody order pursuant to the state’s continuing jurisdiction established by…”
J.A.R. v. Superior Court, 877 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 25-332 by application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, A.R.S. §§ 8-401 et seq., to all Title 25 custody proceedings.”
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “In its desire to afford immediate relief to an aggrieved party in an emotionally charged situation, the majority has seemingly ignored the comity afforded to the court of our sister state and has released an anomaly into a highly volatile area of the law.”
Campbell v. Campbell, 617 P.2d 66 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Also, we note that both Arizona and California have enacted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Arizona, A.R.S. § 8-401, et seq.; California, West’s Ann.”
Wheat v. State, 734 P.2d 1007 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “Since Arizona also subscribes to the UCCJA (see ARS § 8-401 et seq., § 25-331), there can be little doubt that Arizona would be willing to give full faith and credit to the Alaska decree.”
Robinson v. Robinson, 361 S.E.2d 356 (Va. Ct. App. 1987). “\ Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-401 et seq. Furthermore, there is no evidence in this record from which the trial judge or we could conclude the Arizona courts would act arbitrarily if it became necessary for them to rule on any aspect of this case.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-401(A) — 1 case
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz Cnty., 731 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “Petitioner timely filed this special action asking this court to order the trial court to grant petitioner’s motions to vacate temporary custody and for abstention, and mo *302 tion for finding of inconvenient forum because the trial court abused its discretion in denying…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-401(A)(3) — 1 case
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “Immediately thereafter, the McGoughs filed a motion to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, A.R.S. §§ 8-401 to 8-424 (1984 Supp.), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-401(b) — 1 case
New Enter. Ltd. v. SenesTech Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019).
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.