Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Turbin v. Superior Court, 797 P.2d 734.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Michael Martin Creel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Michael Martin Creel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Victor A. Arias Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Victor A. Arias Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Verdell Carmen Hamlet v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Verdell Carmen Hamlet v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
12(a), we have routinely handled questions of vicarious disqualification of a prosecutorial agency by special-action review, see, State ex rel.
Davey v. Hon sipe/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Davey v. Hon sipe/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(accepting special action jurisdiction for the denial of a motion to disqualify an entire prosecutor’s office).
State of Arizona v. Hon. chambers/henderson 533 P.3d 195 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. chambers/henderson 533 P.3d 195 Ariz. 2023
(affirming disqualification of the Navajo County Attorney’s Office where a defendant’s criminal defense attorney withdrew mid-representation to join the Office); –23 (1972) (finding a substantial relationship when deputy public defender who worked as co-cou
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/darren Goldin 487 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/darren Goldin 487 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2021
In particular, “criminal prosecutions must appear fair, as well as actually be fair.”
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 908 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 908 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The first encounter between appearance of impropriety and ER 1.11(c)
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, , , see also Rules 1 and 3, Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.
State v. Sustaita 902 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sustaita 902 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See ER 1.10, Comment at 365-66 (definition of "firm" does not include governmental offices such as the public defender’s office; imputed disqualification applies to lawyers in a "firm”); -98 , -37 (App.1990) (ER 1.10 applies to private law firms, not govemment law offices).
Smart Industries Corp., Mfg. v. Superior Court 876 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smart Industries Corp., Mfg. v. Superior Court 876 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Hursey 861 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hursey 861 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1993
still has a definite place in the balancing test the trial court must apply in *334 resolving the question of disqualification.”
Towne Development of Chandler, Inc. v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Towne Development of Chandler, Inc. v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
8 -98 , -37 (App.1990) (discussing the different standards of ER 1.10 and 1.11).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gottsfield 829 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gottsfield 829 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
we held that the facts justified a trial court in disqualifying an entire county attorney’s office.
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Public confidence in the criminal justice system is maintained by assuring that it operates in a fair and impartial manner.” , see also A.R.S.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by