Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nowell v. Rees, 199 P.3d 654.

29 citing documents.

CASTLE ROCK v. PERRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
An order denying a motion to dismiss is not appealable, ¶ 10 (App. 2008); whereas, the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is appealable under A.R.S.
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
But a “court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 11 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2006)).
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
Worker Power v. Glendale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Worker Power v. Glendale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
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
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state 525 P.3d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state 525 P.3d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
4 JOHNSON v. HON HARTSELL/STATE Opinion of the Court the denial of the motion to dismiss is not appealable, ¶ 10 (App. 2008), and the legal issues presented are novel and of statewide significance, ¶ 4 (App. 2004).
E v. v. Hon. Abrams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
E v. v. Hon. Abrams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
The adult statutes and rules “require restoration treatment unless the evidence shows the defendant will not become competent within twenty-one months.”
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
A new expert must be able to explain that restoration efforts were effective, and the trial court must make findings to that effect.” quoting Nowell v. Hintze, No. 1 CA-SA 06-0236, 3 (decision order filed Mar.
Rider v. Garcia 312 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Rider v. Garcia 312 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 21 , (“If a [criminal] defendant has not regained competency within twenty-one months of the original finding of incompeteney, no further attempts at restoration are allowed.”).
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
3 C. ¶ 15 , as a basis to affirm the trial court.
State v. Silva 216 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Silva 216 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
DISCUSSION ¶ 7 ¶ 21 , we held that the trial court may not order the accused committed for restoration treatment for longer than twenty-one months when he is found incompetent to stand trial.
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
§ 13-4517(1) gives the court the authority to “[rjemand the defendant to the custody of the department of health services for the institution of civil commitment proceedings pursuant to title 36, chapter 5.”