Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J—72804, 504 P.2d 501.

73 citing documents.

In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile No. J-86509 604 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile No. J-86509 604 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Cf. also In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-72804, , wherein a juvenile appellant attacked the validity of the juvenile appellate procedures, claiming that the shorter time limits for juvenile appeals violated equal protection.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-86715 594 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-86715 594 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
400 , , See also In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J —72804
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-81405-S 594 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1979
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-81405-S 594 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1979
In In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action, , a juvenile appellant attacked the validity of the juvenile appellate procedures, claiming that the shorter time limits for juvenile appeals violated equal protection.
State v. Duncan 250 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1977
State v. Houff 243 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-47735-1 546 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-47735-1 546 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
The analogy was also recognized in Division One of this court in In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-72804
Welfare of J. E. C. v. State 225 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1975
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-218-1 527 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-218-1 527 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
We believe the following statement of Division One of this court in the case of Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-72804, , aptly expresses our view: “Admittedly, the court in order to adequately inform itself as to all aspects of the behavioral sciences as 'they specifically apply to a juvenile, should consider and be receptive to experts in this field.
State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
1029 , 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action, No. J-72804
In Re the Appeal in Marcopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75755 523 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1974
In Re the Appeal in Marcopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75755 523 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1974
This precise issue had been previously raised before the Arizona Court of Appeals in In Re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-72804
In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-73355 523 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1974
In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-73355 523 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1974
In the Matter of the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-72804, , review denied January 9, 1973.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-74197 514 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-74197 514 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
This issue was determined adversely to the contentions of the juvenile by the case of , which opinion the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review.
State v. Yard 507 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1973
State v. Yard 507 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1973