Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Whipple, 866 P.2d 1358.

152 citing documents.

Wilmington Trust v. Stoller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wilmington Trust v. Stoller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(holding that, when the superior court clearly identifies and correctly rules upon issues raised “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the [superior] court’s correct ruling in [the] written decisi
State v. Shaw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shaw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Under these circumstances, “No useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
Berg v. Weiss & Moy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Berg v. Weiss & Moy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(holding that, when the superior court clearly identifies and correctly rules upon each issue raised “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the [superior] court’s correct ruling in [the] written de
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“No useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
Ianni v. St. Just Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ianni v. St. Just Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Goldwater Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Goldwater Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision,” and we adopt the superior court’s ruling.
State v. Fulgham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Fulgham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.” STATE v. FULGHAM Decision of the Court 274 (App. 1993).
State v. Dickinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dickinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Terranova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Terranova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Carson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “No useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing 3 STATE v. CARSON Decision of the Court the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Benson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Faulkner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Faulkner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the superior court’s 2 STATE v. BURTON Decision of the Court correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Saucedo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Saucedo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Preayer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Helenick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017