Cited by

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

108 citing documents.

State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Special action jurisdiction is proper when “an issue is one of first impression of a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again____” , , (accepting special action jurisdiction when several pending cases involved the same issue and finding that “[njormal appellate procedures will result in unnecessary c
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Romley), , (citing Schrey v. Allison Steel Mfg.
State of Arizona v. Regina Marie Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Regina Marie Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In construing the criminal law, we must take account of “a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to due process: ‘The first essential of due process is fair warning of the act which is made punishable as a crime.’” (Cal.
Jordan v. Rea 212 P.3d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Jordan v. Rea 212 P.3d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
However, “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.” , see also In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton, , (accepting special action jurisdiction as the issue was “one of first impression in Arizona”; had “statewide significance,” affecting more than just the parties involved; and was
TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Guthrie, 202 Ariz. at 274, ¶ 4 , 43 P.3d at 602 ; ¶ 1
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ct., , (“Arizona is a ‘code state’ as far as its criminal law is concerned.”).
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Aragon v. Wilkinson 97 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Aragon v. Wilkinson 97 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, , 346, ¶ 21, (“[A] declaration of public policy in this guise is a matter for the state and federal legislatures and not the courts.”); -90, ¶ 13 , -22 (App.2002) (-05 , -18 (App.1992) (“[W]e cannot consider the wisdom or soundness of policy of legislative enactments, because such matters are clearly addressed to the legislature, not to the courts.”)).
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate ‘where an issue is one of first impression of a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again.’ ”) ( , ).
Cherry v. Araneta 57 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Cherry v. Araneta 57 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
-05 , -18 (App. 1992) (“Arizona is a ‘code state,’ and ...
Haas v. Colosi 40 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Haas v. Colosi 40 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Blake v. Schwartz 42 P.3d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Blake v. Schwartz 42 P.3d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Special action jurisdiction is appropriate “where an issue is one of first impression of a purely legal question, is of statewide importance, and is likely to arise again.”
Calderon-Palomino v. Nichols 36 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Calderon-Palomino v. Nichols 36 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
1697, 1701-03 , 12 L.Ed.2d 894, 898-901 (1964); , (expanding statutory language would “offend due process notions of fundamental fairness”); , (“We may not expand the scope of a crime by judicial decision to punish a defendant for an act that was not criminal when it was performed.”); see also A.R.S.
State v. Cotton 5 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Cotton 5 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Lind v. Superior Court 954 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Lind v. Superior Court 954 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 923 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 923 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-120171 905 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-120171 905 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
is instructive in our analysis.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by