Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schavey v. Roylstongreen2 sentences2008Because a superior court judge has inherent authority to conduct such proceedings and issue such orders as are necessary to the complete administration of justice, Schavey v. Roylston, 8 Ariz.App. 574, 575 , 448 P.2d 418, 419 (1968) (“Courts have inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice.”), we believe Judge Baca, in her capacity as presiding criminal judge, had inherent authority to schedule a consolidated hearing for the limited purpose of receiving evidence and ruling on the privileged visitation issue. 2008Because a superior court judge has inherent authority to conduct such proceedings and issue such orders as are necessary to the complete administration of justice, Schavey v. Roylston, 8 Ariz.App. 574, 575 , 448 P.2d 418, 419 (1968) (“Courts have inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice.”), we believe Judge Baca, in her capacity as presiding criminal judge, had inherent authority to schedule a consolidated hearing for the limited purpose of receiving evidence and ruling on the privileged visitation issue. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo
green
2 sentences2019That litigation eventually led to our decision in State v. Hidalgo (Hidalgo I), 241 Ariz. 543 , 549–52 ¶¶ 14–29 (2017). 2019That litigation eventually led to our decision in State v. Hidalgo ( Hidalgo I ), 241 Ariz. 543 , 549-52 ¶¶ 14-29, 390 P.3d 783 , 789-92 (2017). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Thompson
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Amos v. Bowen
green
2 sentences1999Finally, we have not been provided a copy of any ruling the magistrate entered after the consolidated hearing to which the transcript relates; therefore, we do not know what testimony the magistrate found credible. ¶ 20 Among the numerous Arizona DUI cases in which a due process violation has been found that relates to breath testing, only two have held that dismissal of the (A)(1) charge was required in addition to dismissal of the (A)(2) charge, Sanchez and Amos v. Bowen, 143 Ariz. 324 , 693 P.2d 979 (App.1984). 1999Finally, we have not been provided a copy of any ruling the magistrate entered after the consolidated hearing to which the transcript relates; therefore, we do not know what testimony the magistrate found credible. ¶ 20 Among the numerous Arizona DUI cases in which a due process violation has been found that relates to breath testing, only two have held that dismissal of the (A)(1) charge was required in addition to dismissal of the (A)(2) charge, Sanchez and Amos v. Bowen, 143 Ariz. 324 , 693 P.2d 979 (App.1984). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.
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.