Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court, 62 P.3d 970.

30 citing documents.

Khristina Lyn Shifflette v. Hon. Marner 534 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Khristina Lyn Shifflette v. Hon. Marner 534 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State v. Hon. mandell/matthews 509 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hon. mandell/matthews 509 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Superior Court (State), ¶ 2 (App. 2003).
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State v. Hon. adleman/beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hon. adleman/beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
ADLEMAN/BEASLEY Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶12 Because special action jurisdiction is appropriate to determine the application of a privilege, see, ¶ 2 (App. 2003), this court accepts jurisdiction.
rs/se v. Hon. thompson/vanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
rs/se v. Hon. thompson/vanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Superior Court (State), ¶ 2 (App. 2003), and this case presents a legal question of statewide importance that will arise again, cf. Duquette v. Superior Court (Lamberty)
Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Maricopa, ¶ 2, Ariz. Bd.
Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1(a) or “in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law,” ¶ 2, (internal quotation omitted).
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Laws, ch. 334, § 1; Roman Catholic Diocese, 62 P.3d at 974 (App. 2003) (“We conclude from the language of the statute and the legislative history that the Legislature intended to modify the ruling in Samaritan [II].”).
Schoeneweis v. Hamner 221 P.3d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Schoeneweis v. Hamner 221 P.3d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
RISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 5 “ ‘Special action jurisdiction is appropriate when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy by way of appeal’ or ‘in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law.’ ” Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 9 , ( ¶ 2 , ).
Duke Energy Arlington Valley, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 193 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Duke Energy Arlington Valley, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 193 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
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
Ct., , V2, (citing State ex rel.
Waters v. O'CONNOR 103 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Waters v. O'CONNOR 103 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by