Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hickox v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA, 505 P.2d 1086.

28 citing documents.

Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“[T]he granting of a peremptory challenge to obtain a change of judge as a matter of right is a challenge which is given as a matter of grace under the Rules, and is to be distinguished from a disqualification of a judge based upon cause.” (no constitutional right to peremptory change of judge).
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
The court reasoned that a peremptory change of judge essentially is a “‘matter of grace’” that could be converted to “a trump card which would later destroy the validity of the entire proceeding.” Id.
Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
3 ¶ 15 Our determination that our previous decision does not require a “new trial” as that term is used in Rule 42(f)(1)(E) is also consistent with the characterization of a peremptory change of judge as being a “matter of grace.” See Taliaferro, 186 Ariz. at 223 , 921 P.2d at 23 ( , ).
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Distinguished Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(suggesting that peremptory change of judge is “a matter of grace” and a right created by rule, distinguishable from the disqualification for cause provided in § 12-409).
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 921 P.2d 21 Ariz. 1996
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 921 P.2d 21 Ariz. 1996
This is especially true, where, as here, the rale which grants a peremptory challenge to a judge has properly been characterized as “a matter of grace.”
Mann v. Superior Court 905 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mann v. Superior Court 905 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Because special action is a proper method to test issues relating to a peremptory challenge of a judge, , we previously accepted jurisdiction with an Opinion to follow.
Switzer v. Superior Court 860 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Switzer v. Superior Court 860 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, , (exercise of right cannot be retrieved when party discovers noticed judge’s change of assignment precluded that judge from presiding).
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Keel 672 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Keel 672 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Although relief could have been granted by special action, , we do not believe it was required that the appellant take that route.
State Ex Rel. Dean v. CITY COURT, ETC. 598 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State Ex Rel. Dean v. CITY COURT, ETC. 598 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
where the court held that the failure to name the judge as a party precluded relief against him.
Fenton v. Howard 575 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1978
Fenton v. Howard 575 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1978
Schwager v. Christoffel 536 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
In Re Guardianship of Styer 536 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
In Re Guardianship of Styer 536 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Schwager v. Christoffel 536 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Hickox v. Superior Court 506 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hickox v. Superior Court 506 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The opinion in 1 CA-CIV 2241 was filed on 1 February 1973 , .