Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 476.

41 citing documents.

Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Romley v. Superior Court , , 411, , 478 (App. 1995).
State v. Wein 396 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wein 396 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Romley v. Superior Court (Cunningham)
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
STATE EX REL. SMITH v. Reeves 250 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE EX REL. SMITH v. Reeves 250 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(accepting special action review to reverse trial court’s denial of “victim” status to the owner of a ear damaged by a DUI defendant).
Morehart v. Barton 236 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Morehart v. Barton 236 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
Romley v. Superior Court (Cunningham)
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(accepting special action jurisdiction to address a trial court’s determination of who is a crime victim for purposes of exercising crime victims’ rights).
Douglass v. State 195 P.3d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Douglass v. State 195 P.3d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
we held that a person whose vehicle was damaged by the defendant was the “victim” of the charged offense of driving while intoxicated and therefore, under the protections of the Victims’ Bill of Rights, he was entitled to refuse a deposition.
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(finding owner of damaged car to be restitution-eligible victim of intoxicated driver insofar as offense of driving under influence of intoxicant posed “threat of physical injury” under § 13-4401(6)).
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 161 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 161 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ct. In and For County of Maricopa, -10 , -77 (App.1995); -39 , -87 (1992).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein 150 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein 150 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 476 (App. 1995), Division One of this court held that the owner of a car that had been damaged in an accident caused by an impaired driver was a victim for purposes of the Victims’ B ill of Rights and the Victims’ Rights Implentation Act.
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
-11 , -78 (App.1995) (although defendant argued that aggravated driving under the influence is a "victimless” crime, person whose car was damaged in accident with alleged intoxicated driver could invoke Victims’ Bill of Rights); see also State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 7 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 7 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Romley v. Superior Court (Cunningham), , or when the case presents a narrow question of law of statewide importance.
STATE EX REL. ROMELY v. Sheldon 7 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
STATE EX REL. ROMELY v. Sheldon 7 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(special action jurisdiction is proper to correct trial court’s obvious error).
Champlin v. Sargeant 965 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1998
Champlin v. Sargeant 965 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1998
Emmons v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Emmons v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(2) the grant of special action relief will effectively terminate the litigation; , and (3) our disposition demonstrates the assumption, in a post-verdict settlement agreement, of the risk of mistake as t
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