Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harrison, 792 P.2d 779.
- SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Abuhl v. Howell 135 P.3d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
- Abuhl v. Howell 135 P.3d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
- Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-
Newkirk v. Nothwehr
115 P.3d 1264
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Under Derendal, a finding that an act is of moral turpitude, , , is no longer enough to afford a jury trial for an offense.
- Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
-
Derendal v. Griffith
104 P.3d 147
Ariz. 2005
See, (“Each prong [of the Rothweiler test] is independently sufficient to give rise to a jury trial.”).
- Derendal v. Griffith 83 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-
Derendal v. Griffith
83 P.3d 51
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“Each prong is independently sufficient to give rise to a jury trial.”
- Raye v. Jones 76 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-
Raye v. Jones
76 P.3d 863
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
*193 (“The loss of a privilege is not nearly so serious or burdensome as the loss of a recognized right”).
- Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
-
Benitez v. Dunevant
7 P.3d 99
Ariz. 2000
(“The loss of a privilege is not nearly so serious or burdensome as the loss of a recognized right”).
- Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
- Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
- Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-
Benitez v. Dunevant
979 P.2d 1017
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
1111 The City argues that a potential one-year license suspension is not a “grave consequence” warranting a jury trial, , cert.
- Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-
Amancio v. Forster
993 P.2d 1059
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
bject to a maximum of up to six months in jail and a fine of $300, was not entitled to a jury); , rev.d in part on other grounds, , (fines of $400 and $750 and four months in jail for driving without a license and failure to register a vehicle are not severe and do not implicate morality); , (one charged with running a red light, no proof of insurance, and driving without required eyeglasses, subject to a three-month suspension of his license and fines under $500, was not entitled to a jury).
- State v. Flournoy 971 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-
State v. Flournoy
971 P.2d 197
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 6 For its waiver argument, , (partially questioned by State v. Superior Court, 189 Ariz. at 574 , 944 P.2d at 516 ).
- State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
- State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Superior Court 944 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-
State v. Superior Court
944 P.2d 515
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Frederickson, 187 Ariz. at 274 , 928 P.2d at 698 ( , cert, denied, 498 U.S. 1093 , 111 S.Ct.
- Campbell v. Superior Court 924 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Campbell v. Superior Court 924 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Frederickson v. Superior Court 928 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Frederickson v. Superior Court 928 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Miller 836 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- State v. Miller 836 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- Mungarro v. Riley 826 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
- Mungarro v. Riley 826 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
- State v. Wilson 796 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Criticized State v. Wilson 796 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990