Cited by

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

152 citing documents.

State v. Preayer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
we adopt the ruling of the superior court.
State v. Helenick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under 2 STATE v. HELENICK Decision of the Court 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. Hussein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hussein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “No useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 STATE v. COOPER Decision of the Court rehashing the superior court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 STATE v. ROQUE Decision of the Court ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stewart 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. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Torres 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. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Doss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown 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. Doss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 STATE v. DOSS Decision of the Court 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. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ojeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ojeda 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. 2
State v. Hazzard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hazzard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Accordingly, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Deals Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Deals 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. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Edwards 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.”
Bashi v. Mercado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bashi v. Mercado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding that when a trial court rules “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 trial court’s correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Tiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose 2 STATE v. TIGGS Decision of the Court would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Kuczynski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kuczynski 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. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Young 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. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez 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. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding when superior court rules “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 decision”).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Allard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding when trial court rules “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 trial court's correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Allard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding that when a trial court rules “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 trial court’s correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Kosterow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kosterow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding when superior court rules “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to 2 STATE v. KOSTEROW Decision of the Court understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this
State v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding that when the superior court rules “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 trial court’s correct ruling in [the] written decision”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by