Cited by

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

85 citing documents.

John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(acceptance of special action jurisdiction more likely “in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law”); (award of attorney fees pursuant to undisputed
Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(court more likely to accept special action jurisdiction “in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law”); (special action review appropriate for “test
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Slade v. Schneider 129 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Slade v. Schneider 129 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Robinson v. Hotham 118 P.3d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Robinson v. Hotham 118 P.3d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Snyder v. Donato 118 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Snyder v. Donato 118 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 8 , (special action jurisdiction appropriate in cases involving a matter of first impression or statewide significance, or pure questions of law); ¶ 5 , (special action review in case involving important questions o
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(phlebotomist is “a person who, through training or experience, is competent to draw blood”).
State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
which held that phlebotomists are “qualified persons” to draw blood in a DUI case under A.R.S.
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(acceptance of special action jurisdiction appropriate “in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law”).
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(acceptance of special action jurisdiction appropriate “in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law”).
Cervantes v. Cates 76 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Cervantes v. Cates 76 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(acceptance of special action jurisdiction appropriate “in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law”).
Goy v. Jones 72 P.3d 351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Goy v. Jones 72 P.3d 351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers 70 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Sun Health Corp. v. Myers 70 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 9 , (citing Martin, 195 Ariz. at 301, ¶ 11 , 987 P.2d at 787 (stating that “[cjoncem for those incarcerated, the risk of inconsistent adjudications, and the promotion of judicial economy” are appropriate considerations in determining whether special action jurisdiction should be acc
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Olcan 61 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Olcan 61 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Carrasco 49 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Carrasco 49 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 8 , in support of their position.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by