Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 165 P.3d 203.

37 citing documents.

JUDICIAL WATCH INC v. KRISTEN MAYES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Potter v. Arizona House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Arizona House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Custody” means “the care and control of a thing or person for inspection, preservation, or security.” West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Off., ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (cleaned up).
Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Sheriff’s Off., ¶ 11 (App. 2007), and one reason for this reluctance is that injunctions that simply direct parties to comply with the law provide no specific guidance for future conduct.
Ball v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ball v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sheriff’s Office, ¶ 7 (App. 2007).
Cyber Ninjas v. Hon. Hannah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cyber Ninjas v. Hon. Hannah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sheriff’s Office, ¶ 16 (App. 2007).
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sheriff’s Office, ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 412 (8th ed. 2004)).
Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sheriff’s Office, ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (observing that “courts are generally hesitant to order a defendant to obey a law in the future”).
Conroy v. hutchinson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Conroy v. hutchinson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
W. Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, ¶ 7 (App. 2007).
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sheriff's Office , , 227, ¶ 7, , 205 (App. 2007), but review pure questions of law-including statutory interpretation-de *495 novo, Robson Ranch Mountains, LLC v. Pinal County , , 125, ¶ 13, , 347 (App. 2002).
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Phoenix New Times, 217 Ariz. at 538, ¶ 14; W. Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, ¶ 21, n.8 (App. 2007).
First v. Sunnyslope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First v. Sunnyslope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sheriff’s Office, n.6, ¶ 10, n.6 (App. 2007) (–11, –45 (1967)).
American Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Department of Child Safety 377 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
American Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Department of Child Safety 377 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sheriff's Office, , 230 n. 8, ¶ 21, , 208 n. 8 (App. 2007) (county sheriff required to produce “at once” single category of document that was available for immediate production).
McKee v. Peoria Unified School District 338 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McKee v. Peoria Unified School District 338 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Jennifer Braillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Jennifer Braillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Sheriff’s Office, n.6, n.6 (App. 2007), -11, -45 (1967).
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
¶ 13 In support of its application for prospective relief, the district cites West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., Sheriff's Office
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Citing West Valley View, , the court found that "`Prompt[ly]' as used in A.R.S.
Arpaio v. Davis 210 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arpaio v. Davis 210 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Rather, in this context we have interpreted the word “prompt” to mean “quick to act” or to produce the requested records “without delay.” Phoenix New Times, 217 Ariz. at 538, ¶ 14, 177 P.3d at 280 (citing West Valley View, Inc., v. Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, ¶ 21 , ).
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
2 We have previously defined “prompt” in this context as being “quick to act” or producing the requested records “without delay.” West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, ¶ 21 , (quoting Webster’s New World Dictionary 1137 (2d ed.1980)).