Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite JOHN C. v. Sargeant, 90 P.3d 781.

25 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to E.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to E.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 13 (App. 2004), superseded on other grounds as recognized by Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Brittany R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brittany R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 13 (App. 2004), superseded on other grounds as recognized by Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Edward S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Edward S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See e.g. John C. v. Superior Court (Sargeant, III), ¶ 16 (App. 2004), superseded by statute on other grounds.
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 15 , ("[A] finding of good cause for a failure to appear is largely discretionary.”) ( ¶ 13 , ); ¶¶ 11-13 , ("The juvenile court is in the best position to make discretionary findings such as what constitutes good cause for failure to appear.”).
Carlos R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Carlos R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[A] telephonic appearance is an acceptable alternative to personal appearance when personal appearance is prevented by incarceration.” ¶ 17 (App. 2004).
Catherine B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Catherine B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
.” ¶ 13, superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 13, see also John C. v. Superior Court (Sargeant, III), ¶ 16, (addressing good cause when parent is incarcerated in another jurisdiction), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 158 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 158 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“[A] finding of good cause for a failure to appear is largely discretionary.”
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
46 ¶ 8, (“A petition for special action is the appropriate method to challenge the denial of a jury trial.”); see also State ex rel.
Willie G. & Bonnie H. v. Ades, Nycole G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Willie G. & Bonnie H. v. Ades, Nycole G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Determining what constitutes good cause for a party’s failure to appear at a hearing is “largely discretionary.”
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 119 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 119 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Determining what constitutes good cause for a party’s failure to appear at a hearing is “largely discretionary.”
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Second, “[sjpecial action review is an appropriate means to determine whether there is a right to a jury trial.” , , (“A petition for special action is the appropriate method to challenge the denial of a jury trial.”).