Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 765 P.2d 116.

28 citing documents.

Left Thumb v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Left Thumb v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
II, 246 Ariz. at 571, ¶ 13 (quoting Winner Enterprises, ).
Heritage v. Weinberg 443 P.3d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Heritage v. Weinberg 443 P.3d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court (Hancock)
Woodbridge Structured Funding, LLC v. Arizona Lottery 326 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Woodbridge Structured Funding, LLC v. Arizona Lottery 326 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
¶2 It also is appropriate to accept special-action jurisdiction here because, at least with respect to the interviews of the Salvation Army’s employees, the challenge to the respondent judge’s ruling involves “a pure issue of law that may be decided without further factual inquiry.” Winner Enters.
Cosper v. Rea Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 250 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cosper v. Rea Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 250 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
tertain petitions for interlocutory relief on *441 discovery matters, the exercise of special action jurisdiction is appropriate when the issue involves interpretation or application of procedural rules and when the respondent judge’s alleged abuse of discretion concerns “a pure issue of law that may be decided without further factual inquiry.” See Winner Enter., Ltd. v. Superior Court (Hancock)
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See generally Winner Enters., , , 118 (App.1988) (exercising special action jurisdiction to correct erroneous denial of right to intervene); State ex rel.
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Actions 1(a), 17B A.R.S.; see Winner Enters.
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Special action jurisdiction also is appropriate when the issue involves interpretation or application of civil procedure rules, and when the respondent judge’s alleged abuse of discretion concerns “a pure issue of law that may be decided without further factual inquiry.” Winner Enterprises, (motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24, Ariz. R. Civ.
State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 998 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 2000
State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 998 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 2000
William Z. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 965 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
William Z. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 965 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Riddel 817 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Riddel 817 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Brown 815 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Brown 815 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989