Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Kyle M., 27 P.3d 804.

34 citing documents.

In Re Dependency as to K.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Dependency as to K.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Relying on Father argues his statement was not a “true threat” because he did not “aggressive[ly] confront[]” Kim.
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 25 (App. 2001) (finding constitutional challenge on vagueness and overbreadth grounds waived for failure to raise issue in the trial court).
Adrienne D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Adrienne D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (parents must voice their concerns about services to the juvenile court in a timely manner); ¶ 2 (App. 2001) (even constitutional arguments can be waived if not presented to the juvenile court).
Casey H. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Casey H. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sec., 178–79, ¶¶ 10, 16 (App. 2014) (arguments not raised in the juvenile court are generally waived on appeal); ¶ 2 (App. 2001) (even constitutional arguments can be 2 Given Father’s failure to appear at the pretrial conference, he “is deemed to have admitted the allegations” in the motion for termination.
In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Davidsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Davidsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–452, ¶¶ 22-23 (App. 2001) (holding that § 13-1202(A)(1) applies to a “true threat,” meaning one that a reasonable person would understand as a genuine threat to inflict harm); –23, ¶¶ 11-14 (App. 2002) (same and explaining the standard is objective).
In Re Luis V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Luis V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Steven M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Steven M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶5 This court will not reweigh the evidence but will reverse for insufficient evidence “when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a judgment or when a judgment is clearly contrary to any substantial evidence.” -49, ¶ 6 (App. 2001) (citation omitted).
State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶6 In 2001, this court construed § 13-1202(A)(1) as punishing a “true threat,” which we defined as “a threat if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee that [a defendant’s] words would be taken as a serious expression of an intent to inflict bodily harm, and [the] statements were not the result of mistake, duress, or coercion.” –52, ¶¶ 22–23 (App. 2001).
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 22 (App. 2001) (holding that A.R.S.
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a judgment or when a judgment is clearly contrary to any substantial evidence.” -49, ¶ 6 (App. 2001).
LINDA v. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. 117 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
LINDA v. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. 117 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller 115 P.3d 107 Ariz. 2005
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller 115 P.3d 107 Ariz. 2005
§ 13-1202(A)(1), which proscribes “threatening” or “intimidating.” ¶ 1
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(in our discretion we can address constitutional issues first raised on appeal)
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In view of the lack of any explicit intent requirement on the part of an alleged perpetrator, this court recently held that § 13-1202(A)(1) applied only to a “true threat.” ¶ 19