Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera, 27 P.3d 814.

29 citing documents.

Simmons v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12 (2001).
Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Neptune v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Neptune v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Arizona courts may consider an appeal either of great public importance or an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12 (App. 2001).
Goernitz v. Pavey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Goernitz v. Pavey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12 (App. 2001).
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner 419 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner 419 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Newspapers, ¶ 12 (App. 2001), and citing Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2 v. Phx.
Joshua T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Joshua T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Newspapers, ¶ 12 (App. 2001) (though a matter of prudential or judicial restraint, we limit our review of moot cases to issues of public importance and those likely to recur).
Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County 330 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County 330 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
However, we may elect to consider issues that have become moot “‘if there is either an issue of great public importance or an issue capable of repetition yet evading review.’” quoting Phoenix Newspapers
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Big D Const. Corp. v. Court of Appeals for State of Ariz., Div. One, , Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. De Meo 254 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. De Meo 254 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
We may, however, consider an issue that has become moot “if there is either an issue of great public importance or an issue capable of repetition yet evading review.” Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12 , Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2 v. Phoenix Emp.
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Simpson, 207 Ariz. at 265, ¶ 13 , 85 P.3d at 482 (even if bail issue becomes moot, we may nonetheless consider “an issue of great public importance or an issue capable of repetition yet evading review”) (citing Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12 , ).
Twin Peaks Construction, Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Twin Peaks Construction, Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
been allowed bail, making his question a moot issue that we usually would not consider, Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, , we may continue to “consider an appeal that has become moot if there is either an issue of great public importance or an issue capable of repetition yet evading review.” Phoenix Newspapers, , 460 ¶ 12
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Phoenix Newspapers, , 460 ¶ 10