DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

178 citing documents.

  • 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)