14 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hays v. Gamagreen2 sentences2023See Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99 , 103–04, ¶¶ 21–23 (2003). 5 CORONADO v. CORONADO Decision of the Court a parent seeks a relocation that necessarily will involve a change in parenting time or legal decision-making.” Id. at 177, ¶ 8 . ¶15 Here, the superior court’s amended order granting the relocation clearly modified Father’s parenting time by requiring him to travel to Connecticut for visits, except when the children visit Arizona. 2023See Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99 , 103–04, ¶¶ 21–23 (2003). 5 CORONADO v. CORONADO Decision of the Court a parent seeks a relocation that necessarily will involve a change in parenting time or legal decision-making.” Id. at 177, ¶ 8 . ¶15 Here, the superior court’s amended order granting the relocation clearly modified Father’s parenting time by requiring him to travel to Connecticut for visits, except when the children visit Arizona. | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Gonzalesgreen1 sentence2021See Gonzales v. Gonzales, 134 Ariz. 437, 437 (App. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.green1 sentence2019Id. at 845, 847 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Soriagreen1 sentence2018Cf. id. at 102, 103, ¶¶ 1, 7 , 170 P.3d at 711-12 (imposition of the $45 bench warrant fee was error because defendant was arrested under an arrest warrant, *207 not a bench warrant, and defendant was unaware "of the reason, time and place of his appearance"). | 1 | 1 |
Builders Finance Co. v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2014Co. v. Holmes, 89 Ariz. 157, 159 , 359 P.2d 751, 752 (1961) (“[T]est as to whether a complaint is sufficient ... is “whether enough is stated therein[.]”), quoting Mackey v. Spangler, 81 Ariz. 113, 115 , 301 P.2d 1026, 1027 (1956). ¶ 16 Second, we are concerned the parties lacked notice of the nature of the scheduled hearing. 2014Co. v. Holmes, 89 Ariz. 157, 159 , 359 P.2d 751, 752 (1961) (“[T]est as to whether a complaint is sufficient ... is “whether enough is stated therein[.]”), quoting Mackey v. Spangler, 81 Ariz. 113, 115 , 301 P.2d 1026, 1027 (1956). ¶ 16 Second, we are concerned the parties lacked notice of the nature of the scheduled hearing. | 1 | 1 |
MacKey v. Spanglergreen2 sentences2014Co. v. Holmes, 89 Ariz. 157, 159 , 359 P.2d 751, 752 (1961) (“[T]est as to whether a complaint is sufficient ... is “whether enough is stated therein[.]”), quoting Mackey v. Spangler, 81 Ariz. 113, 115 , 301 P.2d 1026, 1027 (1956). ¶ 16 Second, we are concerned the parties lacked notice of the nature of the scheduled hearing. 2014Co. v. Holmes, 89 Ariz. 157, 159 , 359 P.2d 751, 752 (1961) (“[T]est as to whether a complaint is sufficient ... is “whether enough is stated therein[.]”), quoting Mackey v. Spangler, 81 Ariz. 113, 115 , 301 P.2d 1026, 1027 (1956). ¶ 16 Second, we are concerned the parties lacked notice of the nature of the scheduled hearing. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. Mh2003-000240green2 sentences2008This court has interpreted A.R.S. § 36-535(B) to “permit[ ] a continuance only on request of the patient.” MH 2003-000240, 206 Ariz. at 369, ¶ 8 , 78 P.3d at 1090 . ¶ 11 Giving effect to the provisions in the statutes, a trial court confronted with a patient who for medical reasons is unable to attend the scheduled hearing has limited options. 2008This court has interpreted A.R.S. § 36-535(B) to “permit[ ] a continuance only on request of the patient.” MH 2003-000240, 206 Ariz. at 369, ¶ 8 , 78 P.3d at 1090 . ¶ 11 Giving effect to the provisions in the statutes, a trial court confronted with a patient who for medical reasons is unable to attend the scheduled hearing has limited options. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
1 sentence2026Sec., 210 Ariz. 77 , 83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (citation omitted). ¶8 A court may terminate parental rights by accelerating the proceedings and receiving evidence when a parent fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, so long as the parent had proper notice, was properly served, and was advised of the consequences of failing to appear. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Southwest Nurseries v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2014The request for review attached (1) pre-injury medical records showing “extensive medical treatment and hospitalization for prior back injuries” in 'the same area of the back and (2) an affidavit from counsel stating “that after the scheduled hearing, claimant’s girlfriend [who testified consistently with claimant’s testimony] had advised him that claimant had lied, and also told him about physicians who had previously treated the claimant for back problems.” Id. at 172-73 , 650 P.2d at 474-75 . 2014The request for review attached (1) pre-injury medical records showing “extensive medical treatment and hospitalization for prior back injuries” in 'the same area of the back and (2) an affidavit from counsel stating “that after the scheduled hearing, claimant’s girlfriend [who testified consistently with claimant’s testimony] had advised him that claimant had lied, and also told him about physicians who had previously treated the claimant for back problems.” Id. at 172-73 , 650 P.2d at 474-75 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Henry
green
1 sentence2003Id. ¶20 On review, the supreme court affirmed the trial court in all respects. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro
green
2 sentences1997Taliaferro, 186 Ariz. at 222 , 921 P.2d at 22 . 1997Taliaferro, 186 Ariz. at 222 , 921 P.2d at 22 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Blickenstaff v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
green
2 sentences1991At the scheduled hearing on April 16, 1990, Fidelity moved to dismiss under Blicken-staff v. Industrial Commission, 116 Ariz. 335 , 569 P.2d 277 (App.1977). 1991At the scheduled hearing on April 16, 1990, Fidelity moved to dismiss under Blicken-staff v. Industrial Commission, 116 Ariz. 335 , 569 P.2d 277 (App.1977). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Town of El Mirage v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1987He then missed the scheduled hearing because he wasn’t “feeling well.” Id. at 380 , 621 P.2d at 289 . 1987He then missed the scheduled hearing because he wasn’t “feeling well.” Id. at 380 , 621 P.2d at 289 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Rosovich v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
green
2 sentences1984Cf. Rosovich v. Industrial Commission, 133 Ariz. 374 , 651 P.2d 1199 (1982) (abuse of discretion to deny an admittedly late subpoena request and motion for continued hearing when claimant’s counsel was ill, even though no motion for an extension of time was filed before the scheduled hearing). 1984Cf. Rosovich v. Industrial Commission, 133 Ariz. 374 , 651 P.2d 1199 (1982) (abuse of discretion to deny an admittedly late subpoena request and motion for continued hearing when claimant’s counsel was ill, even though no motion for an extension of time was filed before the scheduled hearing). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Bills v. Weaver
neutral
2 sentences1978Further, we think it is equally evident that it is not a denial of due process to fail to give prior notice to an applicant of the right to have counsel present to participate in a scheduled hearing. 1 Bills v. Weaver, 25 Ariz.App. 473 , 544 P.2d 690 (1976). 1978Further, we think it is equally evident that it is not a denial of due process to fail to give prior notice to an applicant of the right to have counsel present to participate in a scheduled hearing. 1 Bills v. Weaver, 25 Ariz.App. 473 , 544 P.2d 690 (1976). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.