Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Department, 594 P.2d 1034.

30 citing documents.

Goldwater v. City of Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Goldwater v. City of Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Police Dep’t, (prohibiting permanent non-disclosure).
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Still others, such as Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Dep’t, do not identify a scope of review.
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake contends that the "technical analysis” of Mathews has been replaced by subsequent appellate decisions, , and Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Dep’t
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
v. Rogers, -41 , -10 (1991) (citing Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Dep’t, , ); Scottsdale Unified Sch.
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
See Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Dep’t, (App. 11 1979) (noting that the trial court performed an in camera inspection before ruling that the documents at issue were not public records).
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 937 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 937 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, e.g., Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers, Inc., -41 , -10 (1991) (citing Church of Scientology v. Phoenix Police Dep’t., , ).
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers 815 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1991
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers 815 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1991
See, , -17 , -65 (Ct.App.1981); Church of Scientology v. Phoenix Police Dep’t, , (Ct.App.
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991
Mitchell v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR PIMA CTY. 690 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1984
Mitchell v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR PIMA CTY. 690 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1984
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1984
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1984
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
The first statute provides: “Public records and other matters in the office of any officer at all times during office hours shall be open to inspection by any person.” The “offense report” was a report made by a public official, the Sheriff, by his personnel, in pursuance of a duty and, , , was a public record.
Dunwell v. University of Arizona 657 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Dunwell v. University of Arizona 657 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
§ 39-121 which gives the public access to “other matters.” , the court held that the proper way to view all requests for information is not to determine whether or not the record is technically a public record of other matter, but instead to determine if release of the information would have an important and harmful effect upon the official duties of
Moorehead v. Arnold 637 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Little v. Gilkinson 636 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Moorehead v. Arnold 637 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Little v. Gilkinson 636 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
which held that a 20-year old police report must be disclosed.