Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cardoso v. Soldo, 277 P.3d 811.

186 citing documents.

Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Matters of great public importance are those that have a “broad public impact beyond resolution of the specific case.” ¶ 6 (App. 2012).
Vanden Bosch v. Vanden Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Vanden Bosch v. Vanden Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 5 (App. 2012) (stating this Court generally dismisses an appeal as moot “when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties”).
Jackman v. McCann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jackman v. McCann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶7 We will, as a matter of judicial restraint, “dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties,” unless such appeal presents an issue of “great public importance or one capable of repetition yet evading review.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012); see also Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (appellate courts do not give opinions on questions that “by a change in a condition of affairs” have become moot).
Fisher v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Fisher v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Dlr v. O'Neil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Dlr v. O'Neil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 6 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2011)).
Streeter v. Visor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Streeter v. Visor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 5, (“[W]e will dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.”).
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“[W]e will dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.”).
Origami v. Connelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Origami v. Connelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Welfare, ¶ 6, ORIGAMI et al. v. CONNELLY Decision of the Court 811, 814 (App. 2012) (noting that an appellate court generally declines to apply the “public importance” exception where an appellant’s argument is grounde
Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Morrison v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Morrison v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶11 The exception for matters of “great public importance” typically applies when the matter “will have broad public impact beyond resolution of the specific case.” ¶ 6, (citing Bank of N.Y.
Savord v. Morton 330 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Savord v. Morton 330 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
will have broad public impact beyond resolution of the specific case.”
Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Michaelson v. Garr 323 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
2 Although the order of protection against Garr expired on October 13, 2013, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3602(K) (West 2014), we do not consider his appeal to be moot because “expired orders of protection have ongoing collateral legal consequences.” -18, ¶¶ 9-10, -15 (App. 2012) (explaining that the collateral consequences exception allows this court to review an otherwise expired order of protection).
Straw v. Witts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Straw v. Witts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 16, (order of protection ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion).
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
See Cardoso v. Soldo, ___ Ariz. ___, n.1, n.1 (App. 2012)