Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schwartz v. SUPERIOR CT. IN MARICOPA CTY., 925 P.2d 1068.

26 citing documents.

Shinn v. Merkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Shinn v. Merkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(denial of a motion to quash subpoena is not an appealable order).
Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Maricopa, (finding that a superior court’s denial of a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum is not an appealable order but may be challenged by special action).
Lovett v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lovett v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Maricopa, (reviewing trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash subpoena for abuse of discretion).
State v. Bivens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bivens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“A court abuses its discretion if a decision is manifestly unreasonable or is based on untenable grounds[,]” or if the reasons given for its action are legally incorrect.
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
"A court abuses its discretion if a decision is manifestly unreasonable or is based on untenable grounds," or if the reasons it gives are legally incorrect, ¶ 19 (App. 2013).
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“A court abuses its discretion if a decision is manifestly unreasonable or is based on untenable grounds[,]” or if the reasons given for its action are legally incorrect.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein 381 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phx News v. Hon reinstein/state/moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein 381 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schwartz v. Superior Court, *446
Phx News v. Hon reinstein/state/moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(“State administrative agencies have no inherent powers; their powers are limited to those granted by statute.”).
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“A court abuses its discretion if a decision is manifestly unreasonable or is based on untenable grounds[,]” , or if the reasons given for its action are legally incorrect.
Arizona State Board of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State University v. Arizona State Personnel Board 985 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1999
Arizona State Board of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State University v. Arizona State Personnel Board 985 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1999
Beazer Homes Arizona, Inc. v. Goldwater 993 P.2d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Beazer Homes Arizona, Inc. v. Goldwater 993 P.2d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999