Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779.

181 citing documents.

STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶ 8, -96 (App. 1999) (alteration in Berger I) (citations omitted in Berger I).
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
XIV; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 13; ¶ 49
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000076 244 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000076 244 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(legislature created Sexually Violent Persons Act, allowing involuntary commitment of individuals with mental disorders, “‘likely to engage in acts of sexual violence’ ”), quoting A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Erica Lea Daughters-White, Sean Aaron Johnson, John Clifton Livingston ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Erica Lea Daughters-White, Sean Aaron Johnson, John Clifton Livingston ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
We accept jurisdiction because the state has no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by appeal, and because the issue is one of statewide importance, -87 (App. 1999).
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
JURISDICTION ¶ 6 We will accept special action jurisdiction of pure issues of law when a petitioner does not have an “equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal.” Aizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 1(a); ¶ 8 , ¶ 9
State of Arizona v. Daughters-White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daughters-White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
and because the issue is one of statewide importance, -87 (App. 1999).
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“Indeed we have a duty to construe statutes in harmony with the constitution if it is possible to reasonably do so.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Hay, 953 P.2d at 677 ; , (prior convictions relevant to propensity to commit future acts).
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
458, ¶¶ 6, 36 , 1216 (App.2007) (approving a procedure permitting sensitive information to be filed under seal); ¶ 101 , (“If petitioners need additional protection, they may request that information be submitted to the court under seal or that the file be sealed.”); Ariz. R. Sup.Ct.
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(defamation); , (physician-patient communications); , (election wager); Maricopa County Juv.
In Re Jesse M. 170 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Jesse M. 170 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
1804 ; 307, ¶¶ 20, 39, 41 , 793 (App.1999), the standards in criminal cases have been examined to determine when waiver can occur.
Catrone v. Miles 160 P.3d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Catrone v. Miles 160 P.3d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 96 , (stating that statutory privileges, such as the physician-patient privilege, may be limited by the legislature, for example, by disregarding the privilege “in weighing the needs of parties to civil litigation”); State ex rel.
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
300 ¶ 9, see also ChartOne, , 165-66 ¶¶ 8-9, -07 (App.2004) (Questions of law are “particularly appropriate for special action review,” as are questions “of statewide importance and of first impression.” (Citations omitted.)).
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Gottsfield 146 P.3d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Gottsfield 146 P.3d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Salib v. City of Mesa 133 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Salib v. City of Mesa 133 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
-02, ¶ 16 , -88 (App.1999).
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Naslund v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 110 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Naslund v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 110 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Although MCSO has not made this precise argument, we choose to consider the argument because we have a "duty to interpret statutes in harmony with the constitution if it is possible to reasonably do so.” Maricopa County v. Kinko’s Inc., ¶ 11 , (-02, ¶ 16 , -88 (App.1999)).
State v. Cofield 107 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Cofield 107 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
§§ 36-3701 to -3717 (2003); -07, ¶¶ 19-36 , -93 (App.1999) (determining that Arizona’s SVP Act is civil in nature rather than criminal); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361-69 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
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
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by