DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite LaFaro v. Cahill, 56 P.3d 56.

63 citing documents.

  • Denmon v. Safarian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 8 (App. 2002) (holding an injunction against harassment is a final order from which an appeal is “explicitly permit[ted]” by what is now A.R.S.
  • Streeter v. Visor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Streeter v. Visor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Mahar v. Acuna, II 287 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Mahar v. Acuna, II 287 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    an injunction.” ¶¶ 7-8, -59 (App. 2002) (permitting appeal of injunction against harassment).
  • 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
    Id.; ¶ 9 , (injunction against harassment restricting political speech not moot because it presented “an issue of great public importance that is capable of evading review”).
  • MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    When doubts exist as to a statute’s viability, we attempt to construe the statute with “a reasonable and constitutional meaning.” ¶ 21 , ( ¶ 20 , ).
  • CONGRESS ELEMENTARY SCH. DIST. v. Warren 251 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • CONGRESS ELEMENTARY SCH. DIST. v. Warren 251 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009