Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Old West Bonding Co., 56 P.3d 42.

50 citing documents.

State v. Coker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Coker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
After finding the motion untimely, the court noted: “Pursuant to [State v. Old West Bonding Co.], the [c]ourt considered [Coker’s] custody status as one of the factors in determining whether to forfeit the bond.” In other words, the court declined to consider Coker’s argument that being in custody in Texas excused her absence because it had previously considered her custody status when entering the or
State v. Azteca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Azteca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶7 ¶ 26 (App. 2002), to determine whether forfeiture was appropriate.
Lindgren v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lindgren v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Didn't Do It Bail Bonds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Didn't Do It Bail Bonds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We review the record “in the light most favorable to support the judgment of the trial court.” ¶ 9 (App. 2002) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2001)).
State v. Quick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Quick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 7.6(c)(3); ¶ 23 (App. 2002).
State v. All Out Now Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. All Out Now Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 9 (App. 2002) (forfeiture determination); –16, ¶ 13 (App. 2015) (denial of a motion for new trial).
State v. Haro-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Haro-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Arizona Bailman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Arizona Bailman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 17 (App. 2002) (finding that exoneration of appearance bond is only mandated if defendant does not 3 STATE v. ARIZONA BAILMAN, et al. Decision of the Court violate any condition of the appearance bond; if condition is viol
State v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 7.6(c)(3); ¶ 23 (App. 2002).
State v. Adept Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Adept Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mayfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mayfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. International Fidelity Insurance Co. and Regulator Bail Bonds 355 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. International Fidelity Insurance Co. and Regulator Bail Bonds 355 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Seneca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Seneca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Sun Surety Insurance Company 301 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Sun Surety Insurance Company 301 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 238 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 238 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
And, “[w]e interpret rules of procedure, as we do statutes, by their plain meaning.”
State v. Bail Bonds USA 224 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Bail Bonds USA 224 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 10 With respect to bond forfeiture, “the trial court may exercise its discretion in determining whether to forfeit all, part, or none of the appearance bond pursuant to Rule 7.6(c)(2) and whether any part of the bond not forfeited should be exonerated pursuant to Rule 7.6(d)(2) or (3).” ¶ 25
Gersten v. Gersten 219 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gersten v. Gersten 219 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 16 , (stating court should interpret court rule to give it a fair and sensible meaning); see also Mergentime Corp. v. Washington Metro.
VICARI v. Lake Havasu City 213 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VICARI v. Lake Havasu City 213 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“We interpret rules of procedure, as we do statutes, by their plain meaning.” ¶ 12
State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds 213 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds 213 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
J.L.F., 208 Ariz. at 162, ¶ 15 , 91 P.3d at 1005 ; ¶ 12 , (holding rules of procedure interpreted in same manner as statutes).
Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In Re Bond Forfeiture in Pima County Cause Cr-20031154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In Re Bond Forfeiture in Pima County Cause Cr-20031154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
("[t]o give meaningful effect to both" subsections of rule, one of which used "shall" and the other "may," court "construe[d] the word `may' ...

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by