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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-402 (2026)

Postarrest detention decisions

✓ 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 any proceeding in which the court considers the postarrest release of the juvenile accused of committing a delinquent act against the victim or the conditions of that release.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1984–1995 · leading case: J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 6× “[t]his state is the domicile or the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding or had been the child’s domicile or home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding.” A.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 8-402(3). Nor do we believe that DES’ statutory duty to protect the children can only be fulfilled by conducting the dependency proceeding in Arizona.”
Finck v. O'Toole, 880 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 8-402 to -03. NOTES [1] Darla was relegated to a habeas corpus proceeding for custody because the Fincks refused, repeatedly, to turn Christopher over to her.”
Lofts v. Superior Court, 682 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “We do not agree with petitioner’s contention that respondent’s Arizona “Petition for Order to Show Cause re: Child Custody Modification; Jurisdiction” of April 27th was not a “proceeding” under § 2(3) of the UCCJA (A.R.S. § 8-402(3)). A petition requesting the Arizona court to…”
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 8-402(5). Arizona can exercise jurisdiction if it is: .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-402(3) — 2 cases
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “See A.R.S. § 8-402(3). Nor do we believe that DES’ statutory duty to protect the children can only be fulfilled by conducting the dependency proceeding in Arizona.”
Lofts v. Superior Court, 682 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1984). “We do not agree with petitioner’s contention that respondent’s Arizona “Petition for Order to Show Cause re: Child Custody Modification; Jurisdiction” of April 27th was not a “proceeding” under § 2(3) of the UCCJA (A.R.S. § 8-402(3)). A petition requesting the Arizona court to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-402(5) — 3 cases
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). “[t]his state is the domicile or the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding or had been the child’s domicile or home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding.” A.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “See A.R.S. § 8-402(3). Nor do we believe that DES’ statutory duty to protect the children can only be fulfilled by conducting the dependency proceeding in Arizona.”
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “A.R.S. § 8-402(5). Arizona can exercise jurisdiction if it is: .”
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.