Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Escalanti v. Superior Court, 799 P.2d 5.

36 citing documents.

State v. Yug 501 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Yug 501 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting that § 31-144(A) applies to sentences, other than those specifying “flat” time, imposed for misdemeanor convictions; distinguishing incarceration as a term of probation); (noting that work as a trusty “reduces the [jail prisoner’s] total jail term”).
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn 394 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn 394 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ct. In and For County of Maricopa, State ex rel.
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ct., , and when a petition “presentís] a purely legal issue of first impression that is of statewide importance,” State ex rel.
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Special action jurisdiction is particularly appropriate when statutes or procedural rules require immediate interpretation,” , and for petitions “presenting] a purely legal issue of first impression that is of statewide importance,” State ex rel.
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Campbell v. Barton 215 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Campbell v. Barton 215 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Romley v. Superior Court (Franks), , Escalanti v. Superior Court (Armstrong)
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 6 P.3d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 6 P.3d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Finally, DOR points out that special action jurisdiction is proper when “statutes or procedural rules require immediate interpretation.”
State v. Superior Court of State 945 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Superior Court of State 945 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
see also Estate of Hernandez v. Bd.
Kizzar v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Kizzar v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
*137 , (after denial of motion to dismiss, special action jurisdiction is proper, especially when a statute needs immediate interpretation).
Sonitrol of Maricopa County v. City of Phoenix 891 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sonitrol of Maricopa County v. City of Phoenix 891 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Escalanti v. Superior Court, *33
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
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
DISCUSSION A. Special Action Jurisdiction We accepted special action jurisdiction because the issue requires us to interpret a portion of a constitutional amendment, , and is of statewide significance, , , appropriately framed and turning on legal principles rather than factual determinations
State v. Loera 799 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Loera 799 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
However, case law, from Arizona and elsewhere, clearly holds that the IAD is not applicable to pretrial detainees in another “state.” See , Olson, 146 Ariz. at 338 , 705 P.2d at 1389 ; Seymour v. State, 21 Ariz.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by