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. Marks, 920 P.2d 19.

34 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jose Adrian Agundez-Martinez 540 P.3d 1205 Ariz. 2024
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Adrian Agundez-Martinez 540 P.3d 1205 Ariz. 2024
  • State v. Agundez-Martinez 524 P.3d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Agundez-Martinez 524 P.3d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    at 403; (A “faulty transfer [from the juvenile division to the adult criminal division] does not deprive the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction over the crime.”).
  • Botto v. Botto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Botto v. Botto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jimenez v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jimenez v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “To departmentalize the [superior] court, however, is not to partition its general subject matter jurisdiction.”
  • Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    The administrative organization of Arizona’s superior court into departments “does not partition the court’s general subject matter jurisdiction”) ( and Marvin Johnson, P.C.
  • Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    In Arizona, the superior court is a “‘single unified trial court of general jurisdiction.’” (quoting Marvin Johnson, P.C.
  • Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 13 Arizona’s superior court is a “single unified trial court of general jurisdiction.” Ariz. Const. art. VI, §§ 13, 14
  • State of Arizona v. Jaime Rene Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Jaime Rene Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    (stating juvenile court department of unified superior court for purposes of jurisdiction).
  • Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    v. Myers, 12 (App. 1996).
  • State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Although each superior court can have departments and divisions to manage cases, "the superior court is not a system of jurisdictionally segregated departments but rather a ‘single unified trial court of general jurisdiction.’ " , (quoting Marvin Johnson, P.C.
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    (“Defects in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be contested at any time, including on appeal.”); , (same); , (same).
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    3, ¶ 5 (Ct. App. May 7, 2009) (same); (same).
  • State v. Flores 188 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Flores 188 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    -42 , -22 (App. 1996); , Ariz. R.Crim.
  • Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    This holding is bolstered by the repeated pronouncement by the supreme court that the Arizona “superior court is not a system of jurisdictionally segregated departments but rather a ‘single unified trial court of general jurisdiction.’” , (quoting Marvin Johnson, P.C.
  • State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    at 537-38 n.7, 892 P.2d at 132 6-27 n.7; see also State v. Marks, 186 Ariz. 139, 141, (“Personal jurisdiction may be waived; subject matter jurisdiction may not.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    DISCUSSION I. Jurisdiction ¶7 Rodriguez reiterates on appeal that the trial court should have dismissed the charges on the ground that it lacked personal jurisdiction over him because of the state’s failure to file a 3 notice pursuant to § 13-501(D).1 (any flaw in proceedings transferring juvenile offender to adult criminal division of superior court deprives that division of personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction).
  • In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    102 left undisturbed the superi- or court’s jurisdiction over “[clases and pro-: ceedings in which exclusive jurisdiction is not vested by law in another court,” and over “[c]riminal cases amounting to felony, and cases of misdemeanor not otherwise provided for by law.” Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 14(1) and (4); -42 , -22 (App.1996) (finding that Article 6, § 14(4) vests jurisdiction in “superior court at large” over juvenile’s conduct violating felony statute).