18 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2022Opinion of the Court of law, we review its legal conclusions de novo.” Ariz. Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Bd. of Supr’s of Cochise Cnty., 205 Ariz. 345, 346, ¶ 2 (App. 2003) (cleaned up). ¶9 The superior court based its ruling declining jurisdiction on a finding that the Board had not abused its discretion, assessing the merits of the special action claim. 2022Opinion of the Court of law, we review its legal conclusions de novo.” Ariz. Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Bd. of Supr’s of Cochise Cnty., 205 Ariz. 345, 346, ¶ 2 (App. 2003) (cleaned up). ¶9 The superior court based its ruling declining jurisdiction on a finding that the Board had not abused its discretion, assessing the merits of the special action claim. | 2 | 2 |
Bashir v. Pinedagreen2 sentences2021This claim lacks merit. ¶20 A “prosecutor always has the duty to inform the grand jury of clearly exculpatory evidence, even if a defendant has not requested to appear or asked for information to be presented.” Bashir v. Pineda, 226 Ariz. 351, 355, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). 2021This claim lacks merit. ¶20 A “prosecutor always has the duty to inform the grand jury of clearly exculpatory evidence, even if a defendant has not requested to appear or asked for information to be presented.” Bashir v. Pineda, 226 Ariz. 351, 355, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). | 2 | 2 |
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc.green1 sentence2025See Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., 218 Ariz. 541, 544-45, ¶¶ 5, 7-8 (App. 2008) (The court stated it had appellate jurisdiction from the denial of a motion under ARCAP 9(f) under the statutory predecessor to A.R.S. § 12-2101(C)(2)). | 1 | 1 |
National Investment Co. v. Estate of Bronnergreen1 sentence2018Co. v. Estate of Bronner, 146 Ariz. 138, 140 (App. 1985) (concerning a Rule 60 challenge to an allegedly void judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Arkules v. BD. OF ADJUST. OF PARADISE VALLEYgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Arkules v. Bd. of Adjustment, 151 Ariz. 438, 440 (App. 1986) (concerning a special action challenge to an allegedly void board of adjustment decision); Nat’l Inv. | 1 | 1 |
J.D.S. v. Franksgreen1 sentence2015See J.D.S. v. Franks, 182 Ariz. 81 , 84 (1995) (treating as a special action a challenge to Arizona’s jurisdiction over a child custody determination); see also J.A.R. v. Superior Court in and for Cnty. of Maricopa, 179 Ariz. 267 , 272- 73 (App. 1994). ¶2 Mother argues that an Arizona state court is not the proper forum to determine legal decision-making or parenting time for E.B. because Arizona is not E.B.’s “home state.” Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) as adopted in Arizona, Ariz. Rev. | 1 | 1 |
J.A.R. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2015See J.D.S. v. Franks, 182 Ariz. 81 , 84 (1995) (treating as a special action a challenge to Arizona’s jurisdiction over a child custody determination); see also J.A.R. v. Superior Court in and for Cnty. of Maricopa, 179 Ariz. 267 , 272- 73 (App. 1994). ¶2 Mother argues that an Arizona state court is not the proper forum to determine legal decision-making or parenting time for E.B. because Arizona is not E.B.’s “home state.” Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) as adopted in Arizona, Ariz. Rev. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY.
green
2 sentences1984The trial court ruled that our recent decision in Crimmins v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 39 , 668 P.2d 882 (1983), required a new determination of probable cause on Count I, and the trial court also ruled that the insanity statute in effect at the time of the commission of the act would be applied. 1984The trial court ruled that our recent decision in Crimmins v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 39 , 668 P.2d 882 (1983), required a new determination of probable cause on Count I, and the trial court also ruled that the insanity statute in effect at the time of the commission of the act would be applied. | 2 | 1984–1984 |
City of Phoenix v. Peterson
green
2 sentences1977Discovery matters are properly entertained in special actions, City of Phoenix v. Peterson, 11 Ariz.App. 136 , 462 P.2d 829 (1969) and since we believe the respondent abused his discretion in ordering discovery beyond permissible bounds, we choose to take jurisdiction and grant relief. 1977Discovery matters are properly entertained in special actions, City of Phoenix v. Peterson, 11 Ariz.App. 136 , 462 P.2d 829 (1969) and since we believe the respondent abused his discretion in ordering discovery beyond permissible bounds, we choose to take jurisdiction and grant relief. | 2 | 1977–1977 |
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro
green
2 sentences2016Moreover, in Taliaferro , while acknowledging that the analogy between a grand-jury proceeding and a peremptory change of judge *232 “is not exact,” the court found it sufficiently similar to extend the special-action requirement to the latter. 186 Ariz. at 223 , 921 P.2d at 23 . 2016Moreover, in Taliaferro , while acknowledging that the analogy between a grand-jury proceeding and a peremptory change of judge *232 “is not exact,” the court found it sufficiently similar to extend the special-action requirement to the latter. 186 Ariz. at 223 , 921 P.2d at 23 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bennett v. Napolitano
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 522 ¶ 3, 81 P.3d at 313 . 2006Id. at 522 ¶ 3, 81 P.3d at 313 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2004According to the trial court, Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), as applied to the Arizona statutory scheme, prohibits the imposition of an aggravated sentence, and there is no mechanism for imposing a sentence greater than the presumptive. 2004According to the trial court, Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), as applied to the Arizona statutory scheme, prohibits the imposition of an aggravated sentence, and there is no mechanism for imposing a sentence greater than the presumptive. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Agnew
green
2 sentences1983Because we believe the court abused its discretion in denying the motion, and because the petitioner is without an adequate remedy by means of an appeal, State v. Agnew, 132 Ariz. 567 , 647 P.2d 1165 (App.1982), we assume jurisdiction and grant relief. 1983Because we believe the court abused its discretion in denying the motion, and because the petitioner is without an adequate remedy by means of an appeal, State v. Agnew, 132 Ariz. 567 , 647 P.2d 1165 (App.1982), we assume jurisdiction and grant relief. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court
green
2 sentences1981We believe special action intervention is appropriate since the challenged ruling is erroneous as a matter of law, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court, 19 Ariz.App. 210 , 505 P.2d 1383 (1973), and we therefore accept jurisdiction. 1981We believe special action intervention is appropriate since the challenged ruling is erroneous as a matter of law, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court, 19 Ariz.App. 210 , 505 P.2d 1383 (1973), and we therefore accept jurisdiction. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Campbell v. Deddens
green
2 sentences1980Venue rulings are appropriately reviewable by special action, Campbell v. Deddens, 21 Ariz.App. 295 , 518 P.2d 1012 (1974), therefore we assume jurisdiction and grant relief. 1980Venue rulings are appropriately reviewable by special action, Campbell v. Deddens, 21 Ariz.App. 295 , 518 P.2d 1012 (1974), therefore we assume jurisdiction and grant relief. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Bishop v. Marks
neutral
2 sentences1980Since venue rulings are appropriately reviewable by special action, Bishop v. Marks, 117 Ariz. 50 , 570 P.2d 821 (App.1977), we assume jurisdiction and grant relief. 1980Since venue rulings are appropriately reviewable by special action, Bishop v. Marks, 117 Ariz. 50 , 570 P.2d 821 (App.1977), we assume jurisdiction and grant relief. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.