Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 865 P.2d 814.

35 citing documents.

McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sheriff’s Office, (citations omitted).
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
2, § 13 of the Arizona Constitution when it inserted the language from the implied consent 3 The state cites Phoenix Newspapers, (construing two statutes) and Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, (construing elements of same statute).
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Fund Adm’r., , ); see also Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 83 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 83 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 4 , (interpretation and application of court rule is question of law, which appellate court reviews de novo); , (interpretation of statute or rule *276 presents legal rather than factual questions, which court considers de novo).
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
153, 156, see also Perguson v. Tamis, 188 Ar iz.
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, , , (“Interpretation of the meaning and effect of a court rule is a question of law subject to de novo review.”).
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc. 992 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc. 992 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bilke v. State 938 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Bilke v. State 938 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, , (citations omitted).
State v. Braun 914 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Braun 914 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix 895 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994