Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JD-6236, 874 P.2d 1006.
- Robert Z., Susan. v. Dcs, A.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Robert Z., Susan. v. Dcs, A.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Matthew J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Matthew J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Jeffrey T. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Jeffrey T. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- J.S., E.K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- J.S., E.K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades 328 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2014
- Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades 328 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2014
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC 268 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC
268 P.3d 387
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Action No. JD-6236, , 452 n. 2, , 1009 n. 2 (App.1994) (“Statutes relating to the same subject ...
- Antonio P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 187 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Antonio P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 187 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- DIANA H. v. Rubin 171 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
- DIANA H. v. Rubin 171 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
- In Re Paul M. 7 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
-
In Re Paul M.
7 P.3d 131
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Sec., , In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6236
- Goddard v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-
Goddard v. Superior Court
956 P.2d 529
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(legislative intent “must be ascertained not alone from the literal meaning of the wording of the statutes but also from the view of the whole system of related statutes”); In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6236, , 452 n. 2, , 1009 n. 2 (App.1994) (“Statutes relating to the same subject ...
- Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
-
Adams v. State
916 P.2d 1156
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
§§ 8-105-116,-202,-532; In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6236, , ), and because DES caseworkers work closely with the court and are expected to comply with its guidelines as well as the statutory and regulatory requirements, these nonjudicial employees are absolutely immune from liability for all adoption-related acts or omissions.
- Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith 907 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith
907 P.2d 1384
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, e.g., In re Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JD-6236, , 452 n. 2, , 1009 n. 2 (App.1994).
- JV-502820 v. Superior Court 889 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-
JV-502820 v. Superior Court
889 P.2d 36
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
As we recently stated in Matter of Juvenile Action No. JD-6236, , “Among the several ways the juvenile court may provide for a dependent child is to assign legal custody to an appropriate public agency.