DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Stephanie N., 110 P.3d 1280.

28 citing documents.

  • Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs 542 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs 542 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 15; ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (the juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction only “within the terms of the applicable statutes”).
  • State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 7 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2005)).
  • State v. Kemmish 418 P.3d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Kemmish 418 P.3d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 17 (App. 2005) (“[R]elated statutes must be interpreted consistently and harmoniously with one another.”).
  • Bill W. Castillo v. Thania N. Lazo 386 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Bill W. Castillo v. Thania N. Lazo 386 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    and related statutes must be interpreted consistently and harmoniously with one another.” (citation omitted).
  • Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Stanford 323 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Stanford 323 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    ¶¶ 10- 12, (when court’s authority created by statute, it “must be exercised within the terms of the applicable statutes”).
  • In re Thomas D. 290 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • In re Thomas D. 290 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 18 , (juvenile court retained jurisdiction when petition to revoke was filed but not adjudicated before expiration of probation term).
  • In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 15 Our conclusion is further supported by “the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile courts, and the goal of protecting and promoting the best interests of juveniles.” , 320 n. 3, ¶ 20, , 1283 n. 3 (App.2005) (internal citation omitted).
  • In Re Nickolas T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • In Re Nickolas T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    ¶11 This understanding of the juvenile court‟s authority is also “consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile courts, and the goal of protecting and promoting the best interests of juveniles.” n.3, n.3 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).
  • Midtown Medical Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 206 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Midtown Medical Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 206 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    ¶ 17 , (“We must consider all pertinent statutory provisions in reaching a decision, and related statutes must be interpreted consistently and harmoniously with one another.”) (citation omitted).
  • State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Palmer v. Palmer 170 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Palmer v. Palmer 170 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ¶ 17 , (“We must consider all pertinent statutory provisions in reaching a decision, and related statutes must be interpreted consistently and harmoniously with one another.”) (citation omitted).
  • Andrew G. v. Peasley-Fimbres 165 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Andrew G. v. Peasley-Fimbres 165 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    § 8-235(A) (any aggrieved party may appeal final order of juvenile court)
  • City of Phoenix v. Harnish 150 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • City of Phoenix v. Harnish 150 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • In re Brittany Y. 147 P.3d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • In re Brittany Y. 147 P.3d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    § 8-341(B) (Supp.2005) (setting presumptive limit of one year on juvenile probation unless probation violation has occurred); ¶ 20 , (permitting the continuation of probation beyond one-year term because of probation violation).