DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497.

26 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
  • State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
  • Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
  • Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
    Sec., , 336 ¶21, Hansen, 215 Ariz. at 289 ¶ 9, 160 P.3d at 168 (“[W]hen a statute and a rule conflict, we traditionally inquire into whether the matter regulated can be characterized as substantive or procedural, the former being the legislature’s prerogative and the latter the province of this Court.”); -11 , -500 (App.1987).
  • Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
  • State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
    Power to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.”) , , ( , ).
  • Graf v. Whitaker 966 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Graf v. Whitaker 966 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    : I do not find the distinctions drawn by many of the cases ...
  • State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    -11 , -500 (App. 1987); In re the Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Mans Watch
  • Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Pompa, 187 Ariz. at 535 , 931 P.2d at 435 ; -13 , -02 (App.1987).
  • Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Birmingham, 96 Ariz. at 110 , 392 P.2d at 776 (citations omitted); see also Daou, 139 Ariz. at 358 , 678 P.2d at 939 (although right to appeal is substantive, method of perfecting and processing rights is procedural); , (right to post-conviction relief is substantive but time limits are procedural).
  • State v. Jackson 908 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Jackson 908 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    See, , approved, , , (holding that a statutory rule requiring medical malpractice actions to be referred to a medical review panel could not operate to exte
  • State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
    Time limits prescribed for steps to be taken subsequent to the commencement of a case are not statutes of limitation.” , (emphasis in original).
  • State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    cited by respondents, is also inapposite.
  • State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    We do not find the usual definitions of what is procedural and what is substantive particularly helpful to this inquiry, , a rule may be procedural in one context and substantive in another, depending on the policy that the rule is intended to serve.
  • State v. Bejarano 762 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Bejarano 762 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1988
    Division 1 , held that the provisions of A.R.