Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963, 692 P.2d 1027.

111 citing documents.

Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Denise R. v. Ades, Draven R. and Larsen R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Action Nos. JS-5209 & JS-4693
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963, quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972).
Steven K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 113 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Steven K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 113 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4963, , (referring to a “prolonged indeterminate period” as one that is for “an extended and indefinite period of time”).
State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963, , quoting Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 , 108, 92 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963, quoting Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222, 227 (1972).
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 83 P.3d 43 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
Action No. JS-5209 & JS-4963, , (stating that a statute “will not be held void for vagueness if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language”) (citation omitted).
State v. Tsinnijinnie 80 P.3d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Tsinnijinnie 80 P.3d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-1963, , (stating that a statute “will not be held void for vagueness if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language”) (citation omitted).
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Action, , (“The evil to be avoided by overbroad statutes is that the net may be so large that it snares the innocent as well as the guilty.”).
Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 995 P.2d 682 Ariz. 2000
Graville v. Dodge 985 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Graville v. Dodge 985 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4963, , (parents’ right to custody and control of their children is a fundamental constitutional right).
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 971 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 971 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963, , (duty to attempt reasonable rehabilitation satisfied where mentally ill mother was provided the type of therapy that offered the most hope of enabling her to carry out parental responsibilities); see also Maricopa County Juv.
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-120171 905 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-120171 905 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-5209 and JS-4963
Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4963, , (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 , 92 S.Ct.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 904 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 904 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See JS-6831, 155 Ariz. at 556, 558 , 748 P.2d at 785, 787 ; Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-5209 and JS-4963
Mercy Healthcare Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 887 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Mercy Healthcare Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 887 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
A rule is impermissibly vague if it “allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by failing to provide an objective standard for those who are charged with enforcing or applying the law.” Maricopa County Juvenile Action, No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963, , (citations omitted).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904 884 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904 884 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cf. Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4963, , (DES’s failure to provide ongoing psychotherapy does not foreclose termination of parental rights).
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501568 869 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501568 869 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Thus, although we generally are deferential to the rights of parents, see In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-5209 and JS-4-963, , this deference can be superseded by the State’s substantial interests in curbing substance abuse and protecting innocent children.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8441 857 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8441 857 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Action No. JS-5209 and JS-4963
Berenter v. Gallinger 839 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Berenter v. Gallinger 839 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4963
In Re the Appeal in Yuma County J-88-201, J-88-202, J-88-203 833 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re the Appeal in Yuma County J-88-201, J-88-202, J-88-203 833 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Action Nos. JS-5209 and JS-4963
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Juvenile Appeal Nos. JS-5209 and JS-4963, , Powell v. State, 624 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.App.1981).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274 804 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1990
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274 804 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1990
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Action Nos. JS-5209 and JS-4963, , see also Department of Econ.
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
In Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4963, , Division One of this court stated: A statute is unconstitutionally vague if ...
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274 785 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274 785 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See In Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-6831, supra; In Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 and JS-4963
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Severance Action No. S-2397 780 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Severance Action No. S-2397 780 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS 5894, , Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4963
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6520 756 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by