Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crouch v. Justice of the Peace Court of the Sixth Precinct, 440 P.2d 1000.

50 citing documents.

Baseline Tree v. Sun Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Baseline Tree v. Sun Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 554-55 (1962) (“We have said time and again that the Fourteenth Amendment does not assure uniformity of judicial decisions or immunity from judicial error.”) (internal quotation omitted); (“The fact that a 1 Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred.
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Opinion of the Court §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1), respectively.3 But see Rash, 315 P.3d at 1235 (listing § 12-2101(A)(1) among alternative grounds for appellate jurisdiction); -64, -04 (1968) (suggesting certiorari action originates or commences in superior court).
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
4 A defendant does not state a claim for a violation of his due-process rights, however, unless the conflict is so severe as to deprive him of fundamental fairness in a manner “shocking to the universal sense of justice.” , ( , ).
Massey v. Bayless 927 P.2d 338 Ariz. 1996
Massey v. Bayless 927 P.2d 338 Ariz. 1996
dictates that we rely solely on the language of Article 6, section 22, to determine whether justices of the peace must be admitted to the practice of law.
State v. Bolan 927 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Bolan 927 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“Generally speaking, the denial of due process is a denial of ‘fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice.’ ” , ( , ).
Matter of Peck 867 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Peck 867 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1994
State v. Melendez 834 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1992
State v. Melendez 834 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1992
(“[T]he denial of due process is a denial of ‘fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice.’”) (-66 , -06 (1968) and Kinsella v. United States ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
297 , 4 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960)
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Rodriguez 796 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Rodriguez 796 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1990
State v. Poli 776 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Poli 776 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Baca v. Don, 130 Ariz 222, , see also Berry v. Superior Court, Ariz., 29 Ariz.Adv.Rep.
Berry v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Berry v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Oshrin v. Coulter 688 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1984
Oshrin v. Coulter 688 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1984
Baca v. Don 635 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Baca v. Don 635 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
with Shenfield v. City Court, 8 Ariz.App.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
-466 , -1006 (1968), the essence of the term “due process” was described as follows: There is probably no more nebulous and indefinable concept in the law than “due process of law”.
Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale 578 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale 578 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Conkling v. Pollock 558 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Conkling v. Pollock 558 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
City of Tucson v. Valencia 517 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Tucson v. Valencia 517 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Brooks v. Jennings 498 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Brooks v. Jennings 498 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Fagerberg 495 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Fagerberg 495 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
and Morrison v. Superior Court, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. Dziggel 492 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Dziggel 492 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Lynch 489 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1971
State v. Lynch 489 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1971
Furthermore, in Crouch v. Justice of Peace Court, Sixth Precinct, , the Court of Appeals specifically held that a Justice of the Peace is not required to be an attorney.
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County 461 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County 461 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
St. Ex Rel. De Concini v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, Pima County 454 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
St. Ex Rel. De Concini v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, Pima County 454 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Crouch v. Witten, Justice of the Peace

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by