Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112.

26 citing documents.

In Re $200.00 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re $200.00 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
An order of forfeiture is the “functional equivalent of a default judgment.” ¶ 13 (App. 2005).
Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co. of Am., ¶ 11 (App. 2001); ¶ 10 (App. 2005) (citing Safeway Stores, ).
In re In re 418 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
In re In re 418 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
*1128 See State v. Jackson , , ¶¶ 23-28
Brocki v. Brocki Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Brocki v. Brocki Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Although we have broadly characterized the operation of § 13-4311(G) as in some ways the “functional equivalent” of a default judgment, ¶ 13, this court recently held that § 13-4311(G) does not provide a grace period for filing an answer to a forfeiture complaint.
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony 303 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony 303 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§ 13-4311(G) (permitting the state to proceed with forfeiture with ten days’ notice to any person who timely filed a claim but did not file an answer; claimant has twenty days to file an answer after filing claim); -72, ¶¶ 25-28 , -18 (App.2005) (holding that appellant had an obligation to file an answer under the statutory scheme and his failure to do so permitted the state to proceed with forfeiture); accord State v. $5,500 in U.S. Currency
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 26 , (“we give preference to specific statutory provisions over general ones”); State v. Davis, 119 Ariz. *471 529, 534 , (“The principle that the specific law is controlling over the general applies only when there is a conflict between the specific and th
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“We honor the plain language of a statute.” ¶ 26
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“We also attempt to reconcile potentially conflicting statutory provisions.” In re 2001 GMC Denali