Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Henke v. Superior Court, 775 P.2d 1160.

30 citing documents.

Crosby v. Hon. fish/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Crosby v. Hon. fish/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. Borek, ¶ 5 (App. 2014)); -100 (App. 1989) (Special action jurisdiction is appropriate when a dispositive motion claiming immunity has been denied because “we cannot allow a state official to be forced to trial when the process can and should be aborted in its early stages.”).
Mesa v. Hon. driggs/charon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Followed Mesa v. Hon. driggs/charon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Daniel F. v. Dcs, C.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Daniel F. v. Dcs, C.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Action No. JD- 05401, Henke v. Superior Court (Gerst), -63 (App. 1989).
Mashni v. Foster 323 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mashni v. Foster 323 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Henke v. Superior Court (Kessler), -100, -64 (App. 1989).
Nowell v. Rees 199 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Nowell v. Rees 199 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Goddard v. Fields 150 P.3d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Goddard v. Fields 150 P.3d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(based on DeShaney’s holding that “only a person in the state’s custody can maintain a section 1983 claim for injuries caused by a third party,” court ordered dismissal of § 1983 claim against parole officer who allegedly failed to properly supervise and control parolee).
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN CTY. OF MARICOPA 912 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN CTY. OF MARICOPA 912 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Phoenix v. Yarnell 909 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1995
City of Phoenix v. Yarnell 909 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1995
City of Phoenix, 180 Ariz. at 476 , 885 P.2d at 164 (“Defendant in a section 1983 action should not be required to await final judgment in order to challenge a trial court’s adverse ruling on the issue of immunity from suit.”) ( , ); see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-25 , 105 S.Ct.
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(citing Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct.
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Accordingly, we have accepted special action review in cases where defendant has claimed judicial immunity, , -99 , -63 (App.1989), because if one is “erroneously forced to stand trial, he has lost the benefit of immunity, even if he is found not liable.” Henke, 161 Ariz. at 99 , 775 P.2d at 1163 .
Trebesch v. Superior Court 855 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Trebesch v. Superior Court 855 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Our decision on the merits terminates the litigation, Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc., , and declining jurisdiction would require Petitioners to stand trial — thereby losing much of the benefit of their claimed immunity, -100 , , *95 1163-64 (Ct.App.1989).
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Scottsdale Publishing, Inc., v. Superior Court