Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Vo v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 408.

108 citing documents.

State v. Aguirre Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
JURISDICTION ¶6 “As a general rule, special action is not an appropriate vehicle for review of a denial of a motion to dismiss.”
State of Arizona v. Jose Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Jose Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
See § 13-101(2) (purpose of Arizona criminal code is “[t]o give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed and of the sentences authorized upon conviction”); (observing that fair warning as to the nature of criminal acts is an essential element of due process).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Cristobal Cardenas v. Hon. Holmberg State of Arizona 544 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Cristobal Cardenas v. Hon. Holmberg State of Arizona 544 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
This is particularly so when, as in this case, the issue presented is “a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again.” ().
Magellan v. Hon. duncan/dearing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Magellan v. Hon. duncan/dearing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Vo v. Superior Court (Romley)
State v. Hon covil/morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hon covil/morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Vo v. Superior Ct. (State)
State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Vo v. Superior Court , , 205, , 418 (App. 1992) (noting "the wisdom or soundness of policy of legislative enactments ...
Diaz v. Van Wie 426 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Diaz v. Van Wie 426 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Vo v. Superior Court (State ) , , 198, , 411 (App. 1992).
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Udall 424 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Udall 424 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Vo v. Superior Court , , 198, , 411 (App. 1992).
Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Maricopa, (App. 1992).
State v. Hon kemp/davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon kemp/davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Special action jurisdiction is appropriate to address an issue that is “ ‘a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again.’ ” , 229 ¶ 6, ( , ).
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Special action jurisdiction is appropriate to address an issue that is “‘a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again.’” ¶ 6, ( ).
Sheets v. Hon. mead/reynolds 356 P.3d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sheets v. Hon. mead/reynolds 356 P.3d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vo v. Superior Court (State)
McCcd v. Hon talamante/arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
McCcd v. Hon talamante/arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 5, Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 12- 120.21(A)(4).3 Moreover, if the District is forced to conduct further discovery, go to trial, and appeal an erroneous ruling, the purpose of the notice of claims statute will be subverted.
Lindsay R. v. Cohen 343 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lindsay R. v. Cohen 343 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1(a); Vo v. Superior Court (State)
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Special action jurisdiction is appropriate to address an issue of first impression that is “‘a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again.’ ” , 229 ¶ 6, ( , ).
Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney 334 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney 334 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Department of Child Safety v. Beene 332 P.3d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Department of Child Safety v. Beene 332 P.3d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Special action jurisdiction is appropriate to address an issue of first impression that is “ ‘a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again.’ ” , 229 ¶ 6, ( , ).
Sanchez v. Gama 310 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sanchez v. Gama 310 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Bowen Productions, Inc. v. French 296 P.3d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Bowen Productions, Inc. v. French 296 P.3d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
1(a); Vo v. Superior Court (State)
Para v. Anderson 290 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Para v. Anderson 290 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. v. Lee 264 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. v. Lee 264 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
("where an issue is one of first impression of a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again, special action jurisdiction may be warranted"); Ariz. R.P.
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
[that] is of first impression of a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again.”
State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010