Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage, 30 P.3d 649.

85 citing documents.

State v. Stempel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 20 (App. 2001) (“[A] person is ‘qualified’ to draw blood for DUI purposes if he or she is competent, by reason of training or experience, in that procedure.”).
ruco/thaler v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ruco/thaler v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 9 (App. 2001); see also Chevron Chem.
Kaatz v. Rainguard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Kaatz v. Rainguard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Hon. Kyle Bryson Gilbert Delgado 541 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. Kyle Bryson Gilbert Delgado 541 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State v. Stowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Stowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/mark R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dep't of Child Safety v. Stocking-Tate 446 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dep't of Child Safety v. Stocking-Tate 446 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pennartz v. Olcavage , , 585, ¶ 8, , 652 (App. 2001) ).
Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/mark R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pennartz v. Olcavage , , 585, ¶ 8, , 652 (App. 2001) ) ).
Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state 433 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state 433 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner 419 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner 419 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 8 (App. 2001) (citations omitted).
Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, L.P. v. Fuller 398 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, L.P. v. Fuller 398 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jimenez v. Hon. chavez/state 323 P.3d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jimenez v. Hon. chavez/state 323 P.3d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
J.D. v. Hegyi 320 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
J.D. v. Hegyi 320 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 8 , (“Special action jurisdiction is more likely to be accepted in eases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law.”).
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 304 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 304 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
BNSF Railway Co. v. Buttrick 268 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
BNSF Railway Co. v. Buttrick 268 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 8 , BNSF insists that special action jurisdiction is appropriate when a trial court commits clear error on discovery issues.
MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cosper v. Rea Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 250 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cosper v. Rea Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 250 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sigmund v. Rea 248 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sigmund v. Rea 248 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Romley v. Daughton 241 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Romley v. Daughton 241 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Morehart v. Barton 236 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Morehart v. Barton 236 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 8 , (“Special action jurisdiction is more likely to be accepted in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law.”); ¶ 4 , (jurisdiction more likely accepted when add
State v. NOCEO 221 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Edward Charles Noceo, Michael Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Edward Charles Noceo, Michael Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(special action jurisdiction appropriate to resolve issues of statewide importance on which courts are divided).
State v. NOCEO 221 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(special action jurisdiction appropriate to resolve issues of statewide importance on which courts are divided).
John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by