9 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hurd v. Hurdgreen2 sentences2022Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citations omitted). 2022Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009). | 4 | 4 |
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeligreen1 sentence2025State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 180, ¶ 4 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
Pridgeon v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2021Id.; see also Pridgeon v. Sup. Ct., 134 Ariz. 177, 179 (1982) (reversal warranted only upon “a clear absence of evidence”). ¶10 In reviewing the superior court’s findings of fact, this court “examines the record to determine only whether substantial evidence exists to support” the superior court’s action. | 1 | 1 |
Francis v. Sandersgreen1 sentence2021Francis v. Sanders, 222 Ariz. 423, 426, ¶ 10 (App. 2009). ¶13 This case requires us to clarify the State’s duties under due process and A.R.S. § 21-412 when a defendant submits a letter putting forward his defense but does not ask to testify before the grand jury. | 1 | 1 |
William Z. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen1 sentence2018Decision of the Court discretion occurs if the superior court commits an error of law while exercising its discretion, Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), and a summary denial of a motion to intervene is an abuse of discretion, William Z. v. ADES, 192 Ariz. 385, 389, ¶ 22 (App. 1998). ¶10 If either condition for intervention under Rule 24(b) has been satisfied in a juvenile proceeding, the superior court “must determine whether the party opposing intervention has made a sufficient showing that intervention is not in the child[ren]’s best interest.” Allen, 214 Ariz. at 365, ¶ | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Kohler v. Kohlergreen1 sentence2018Decision of the Court discretion occurs if the superior court commits an error of law while exercising its discretion, Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), and a summary denial of a motion to intervene is an abuse of discretion, William Z. v. ADES, 192 Ariz. 385, 389, ¶ 22 (App. 1998). ¶10 If either condition for intervention under Rule 24(b) has been satisfied in a juvenile proceeding, the superior court “must determine whether the party opposing intervention has made a sufficient showing that intervention is not in the child[ren]’s best interest.” Allen, 214 Ariz. at 365, ¶ | 1 | 1 |
Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa Countygreen1 sentence2018Decision of the Court discretion occurs if the superior court commits an error of law while exercising its discretion, Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), and a summary denial of a motion to intervene is an abuse of discretion, William Z. v. ADES, 192 Ariz. 385, 389, ¶ 22 (App. 1998). ¶10 If either condition for intervention under Rule 24(b) has been satisfied in a juvenile proceeding, the superior court “must determine whether the party opposing intervention has made a sufficient showing that intervention is not in the child[ren]’s best interest.” Allen, 214 Ariz. at 365, ¶ | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Chon-Lopezgreen1 sentence2018Decision of the Court discretion occurs if the superior court commits an error of law while exercising its discretion, Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), and a summary denial of a motion to intervene is an abuse of discretion, William Z. v. ADES, 192 Ariz. 385, 389, ¶ 22 (App. 1998). ¶10 If either condition for intervention under Rule 24(b) has been satisfied in a juvenile proceeding, the superior court “must determine whether the party opposing intervention has made a sufficient showing that intervention is not in the child[ren]’s best interest.” Allen, 214 Ariz. at 365, ¶ | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentesgreen2 sentences2010Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 56, ¶ 23 , 97 P.3d 876, 881 (App.2004). 2010Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 56, ¶ 23 , 97 P.3d 876, 881 (App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.