A. In any delinquency proceeding, the court, prosecutor and law enforcement officials shall take appropriate action to ensure a speedy adjudication for the victim.
B. The prosecutor shall make reasonable efforts to notify a victim of any request for a continuance, except that if the victim is represented by counsel who has filed a notice of appearance, the court, if the request for a continuance is in writing, shall make reasonable efforts to notify the victim's counsel in the same manner in which a party is notified.
C. In any delinquency proceeding in which a continuance is requested, the court shall consider the victim's views and the victim's right to a speedy adjudication. If a continuance is granted, the court shall state on the record the reason for the continuance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1984–2001 · leading case:
Canty v. Canty, 874 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
Canty v. Canty, 874 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “section 8-414, Arizona courts had rejected the concept of continuing jurisdiction because Arizona’s version of UCCJA section 3 varies from the model act in a slight, but significant way.”
In Re Alton D., 994 P.2d 402 (Ariz. 2000).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 8-414; Ariz. R. Juv. Ct. 6.1. Until a final order is entered, however, an aggrieved party cannot take an appeal.”
Leon v. Numkena, 689 P.2d 566 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 8-414. In summary, we conclude that because the parties were properly before the Hopi Tribal Court, which had subject matter jurisdiction, the decree of dissolution and custody order of that court were conclusive.”
In Re Kevin A., 32 P.3d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 8-414(A)(1991) ("In any delinquency proceeding, the court .”
Ward v. Huggins, 865 P.2d 105 (Ariz. 1993).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 8-414(A) provides that an Arizona court may modify a custody decree entered by another state where “the court entering the decree does not now have jurisdiction under the jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with this chapter or has declined to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-414(A) — 2 cases
Canty v. Canty, 874 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“section 8-414, Arizona courts had rejected the concept of continuing jurisdiction because Arizona’s version of UCCJA section 3 varies from the model act in a slight, but significant way.”
Ward v. Huggins, 865 P.2d 105 (Ariz. 1993).
“A.R.S. § 8-414(A) provides that an Arizona court may modify a custody decree entered by another state where “the court entering the decree does not now have jurisdiction under the jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with this chapter or has declined to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-414(A)(1991) — 1 case
In Re Kevin A., 32 P.3d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“See A.R.S. § 8-414(A)(1991) ("In any delinquency proceeding, the court .”
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.