Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82.

60 citing documents.

Peterson v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Peterson v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Shea v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Portillo-Diaz v. shinn/centurion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Portillo-Diaz v. shinn/centurion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Shea v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 4 (App. 2001) (explaining that special action jurisdiction “should be reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances’”).
Shinn v. Merkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Shinn v. Merkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 4 (App. 2001) (quoting Ariz. R.P.
Manoukian v. Hon labianca/manoukian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Manoukian v. Hon labianca/manoukian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 4 (App. 2001) (quoting Ariz. R.P.
Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 4 (App. 2001) (quoting Ariz. R.P.
Claxton v. Aboec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Claxton v. Aboec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 4 (App. 2001) (citations omitted); Ariz. R.P.
Leon v. Marner 421 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Leon v. Marner 421 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Romley v. Fields , , ¶ 4
State v. Hon. padilla/colvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon. padilla/colvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 4 (App. 2001); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4032 (2016); Rolph v. Mesa City 1 Colvin argues the trial court never ruled on the admissibility of the 9-1-1 recordings, instead offering only its “leanings toward the[ir] admissibility.” However, the State clearly evidenced its understanding that a ruling
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
¶ 11, (noting that a Frye hearing is only required before admitting expert testimony that relies on new scientific tests or techniques).
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Creamer v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Creamer v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris 301 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris 301 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Gottsfield 146 P.3d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Gottsfield 146 P.3d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 4 , (special action review is appropriate when no equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal exists).
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
see also ChartOne, - 07 (App. 2004) (interpretation of state constitution and civil rule of procedure is question of law appropriately reviewed by special action).
Williams v. Miles 128 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Williams v. Miles 128 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 4 , (citations omitted).
State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 4 , (citations omitted).
Astorga v. Wing 118 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Astorga v. Wing 118 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 4 , (citations omitted).
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
see also ChartOne, , (interpretation of state constitution and civil rule are questions of law appropriate to special action review); , (“Special action review i

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by