Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lind v. Superior Court, 954 P.2d 1058.

31 citing documents.

Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Distinguished Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See Lind v. Superior Court , , ¶ 20
State v. Wein 395 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wein 395 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Don Jacob Havatone 389 P.3d 1251 Ariz. 2017
White v. anderson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
White v. anderson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, -36, ¶ 10, -61 (App. 1998) (“A petition for special action is not ordinarily an appropriate method of obtaining relief from the denial of a motion to suppress because the remedy by direct appeal is generally adequate.”).
State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(noting “pertinent Arizona cases clearly refute” argument that there were no exigent circumstances justifying medical blood draw); (declining invitation to address Cocio because court of appeals is “bound by our supreme court’s determinations”); (finding exigent circumstances argument failed due to Cocio).
Gastelum v. Hegyi 348 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gastelum v. Hegyi 348 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lind v. Superior Court (State), ¶ 10
STATE EX REL. MONTGOMERY v. Whitten 262 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE EX REL. MONTGOMERY v. Whitten 262 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Haag v. Steinle 255 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Haag v. Steinle 255 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Lind v. Superior Court (Maricopa)
Campbell v. Barton 215 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Campbell v. Barton 215 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lind v. Superior Court (Hall), ¶ 10
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
the blood is drawn for medical purposes by medical personnel.” 147 Ariz. at 286, 709 P.2d at 1345; see also Clary, ¶¶ 10-11, 2 P.3d at 1257; (holding that hospital blood sample falls within permissible scope of medical-purpose statute when blood is drawn before showing of probable cause or arrest, amount of blood drawn is more than that needed for medical purposes at the time, and extra blood is set aside for poss
Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Mejia v. Irwin 987 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Mejia v. Irwin 987 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Flannigan 978 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Flannigan 978 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
190 Ariz. at 154 , 945 P.2d at 1285 (citations and footnotes omitted)