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 Eric L., 943 P.2d 842.

38 citing documents.

  • In Re Delinquency of A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • In Re Delinquency of A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    And we find unavailing Juvenile’s reliance on -87 (App. 1997), in which the court was unaware that it could order partial restitution based on the juvenile’s age.
  • Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (the court need not review other arguments if one argument is dispositive).
  • In Re Reynaldo P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • In Re Reynaldo P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (delinquency disposition order "necessarily interlocutory in nature when restitution remains an unresolved issue").
  • John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See In re Eric L. , , 486, , 846 (App. 1997) (the court need not review other arguments if one argument is dispositive).
  • Tellez Velazquez v. Hon. myers/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Tellez Velazquez v. Hon. myers/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (the court does not need to review other arguments if one argument is dispositive).
  • Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    However, “when [a] notice of appeal is filed, it encompasses all previous orders entered by the juvenile court.”
  • In Re Brady D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • In Re Brady D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“The juvenile’s disposition is therefore not final until restitution has been considered and ruled upon.”).
  • Mysti B. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Mysti B. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    L., (stating that until a final order has been entered no appeal may be taken, and “when the notice of appeal is filed, it encompasses all previous orders entered by the juvenile court”).
  • In Re Fernando R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • In Re Fernando R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    This case is thus unlike -87, -47 (App. 1997), in which we remanded a restitution order because the transcript plainly indicated that the court awarded full restitution under the incorrect belief that it could not partially reduce it.
  • In Re Michelle G. 173 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • In Re Michelle G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • In Re Michelle G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    before the Juvenile Court.’” quoting In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-74222
  • In Re Michelle G. 173 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    before the Juvenile Court.’” , quoting In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-74222, 20 Ariz.App.
  • In Re Kevin A. 32 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • In Re Kevin A. 32 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    In general, a disposition is “not final until restitution has been considered and ruled upon.”
  • Rita J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 1 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • Rita J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 1 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    (although court can set reasonable deadline for presentation of restitution claims, claims presented thereafter are barred, and restitution order is final order).
  • In Re Melissa K. 4 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Melissa K. 4 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    ¶ 10 Appellee relies on , to argue that if the juvenile court erred, it was harmless error because the extended record demonstrates the juvenile’s knowledge of the subject matter of the omitted advice.
  • In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
  • In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
  • In Re Devon G. 990 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Devon G. 990 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    Reasoning from the opinion in , review denied, September 16, 1997, holding that a juvenile disposition is not final for purposes of appeal until mandatory restitution is awarded, the panel concluded that cutting off restitution claims was necessary to preserve the juvenile’s right to appeal.
  • In Re Joe S. 975 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Joe S. 975 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Alton D. 970 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Alton D. 970 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    In Frank H., the court relied on the principles of “final order” set forth in
  • In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998