DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Solorzano v. Jensen, 479 P.3d 855.

24 citing documents.

  • Hall v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Lewis v. Cameron-Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 8 (App. 2020) (“We typically decline to find waiver [when] a child’s best interests are at issue.”).
  • ABALLE SHAFFER Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Gonzales v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 8 (App. 2020) (“We typically decline to find waiver [when] a child’s best interests are at issue.”).
  • Villanueva v. Bowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Leigh v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    “Generally, due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, as well as a chance to offer evidence.” ¶ 9 (App. 2020).
  • Stewart v. Floyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶12 Due process “entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, as well as a chance to offer evidence and confront adverse witnesses.” ¶ 9 (App. 2020).
  • Sierpina v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    .” ¶ 8 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2013)).
  • Williams v. ades/lamont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Williams v. ades/lamont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 9 (App. 2020) (“[D]ue process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard.”); see also Gallarzo v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.L. 567 P.3d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.L. 567 P.3d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 8 (App. 2020) (“We typically decline to find waiver where a child’s best interests are at issue[.]”).
  • Mahmood v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Mahmood v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    3 MAHMOOD v. TURNER Decision of the Court ¶ 13 (App. 2020) (due process violated when court accepted Mother’s testimony “without seeing and hearing either [parent] testify” because “[t]he result was that there was no adver
  • Tammy R. v. Lance B., A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Tammy R. v. Lance B., A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nardini-Smith v. Jolly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nardini-Smith v. Jolly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶23 “[D]ue process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, as well as a chance to offer evidence and confront adverse witnesses.” ¶ 9 (App. 2020).
  • Oliveira v. Oliveira Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Oliveira v. Oliveira Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    I. Due Process ¶9 “Due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, as well as a chance to offer evidence and confront adverse witnesses.” ¶ 9 (App. 2020).
  • Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    11, 2020) (finding ruling appealable without Rule 78(c) language) ¶ 29 n.8 (App. 2011) (noting in dicta that “in appropriate cases” Rule 78(b) certification was available) ¶ 4 n.4 (App. 2020) (finding Rule 78(c) was improper, given unresolved issues, but that Rule 78(b) was proper).