Cited by

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

182 citing documents.

Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Mountain States, 160 Ariz. at 354-55 , 773 P.2d at 459-60 (“[T]his court has previously given art. 2, § 6 greater scope than the first amendment.”); ¶ 103 , (“[T]he Arizona Constitution does in some circumstances provide greater protection of speech than does the federal constitution.”).
JOHN C. v. Sargeant 90 P.3d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
JOHN C. v. Sargeant 90 P.3d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-01, ¶10 , -87 (App.1999) (accepting jurisdiction over petition challenging confinement pursuant to Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons Act).
Jackson v. Schneider 86 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Jackson v. Schneider 86 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Commitment of Jerry Michael Conn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In Re the Commitment of Conn 85 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In Re the Commitment of Conn 85 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Commitment of Jerry Michael Conn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (in context of search and seizure, substantive due process is violated only when the government’s action shocks the conscience in a constitutional sense); , (noting that substantive due process “precludes government conduct that shocks the conscience”); , (applying “shocks the conscience” standard in context of substantive due process claim challenging application of Sexually Violent Persons Act).
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Additionally, Petitioners raise “constitutional issues of first impression and statewide importance.” -01, ¶ 10 , -87 (App.1999).
Cervantes v. Cates 76 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Cervantes v. Cates 76 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Fields 75 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Fields 75 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-01, ¶ 10 , -87 (App.1999) (citation omitted).
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
Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
But proceedings under the SVP Act are civil rather than criminal, ¶ 36 , and the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable.
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
bstantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.’ ” , 490-91 n. 3, ¶ 13, , 952-53 n. 3 (App.2001) (quoting *114 -21, ¶ 98 , -07 (App.1999) 6 ).
In Re Leon G. 59 P.3d 779 Ariz. 2002
In Re Leon G. 59 P.3d 779 Ariz. 2002
314 ¶ 68, (holding the SVP statute requires a probability, not a mere possibility of future dangerousness).
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
iven art. 2, § 6 greater scope than the first amendment.” Mountain States, 160 Ariz. at 354 , 773 P.2d at 459 ; see also Phoenix Newspapers, , (“The right of every person [in Arizona] to freely speak, write and publish may not be limited but such a person may be held accountable for an abuse of that right.”); , (acknowledging that, in some circumstances, our constitution provides greater protection to speech than federal constitution).
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Jacobson v. Anderson 57 P.3d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Jacobson v. Anderson 57 P.3d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
see also State v. Schmidt, 143 Wash.2d 658 , (“[E]x post facto prohibitions apply only to statutes which are ‘criminal’ or ‘punitive.’”).
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-02, ¶ 16 , -88 (App.1999).
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
In Re the Detention of Wilber W. 53 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re the Detention of Wilber W. 53 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Prior to Leon G., , carefully addressed and resolved several other important constitutional challenges to the Act.
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Ct., , , 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, ¶ 17
State v. McMahon 38 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. McMahon 38 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Arpaio v. Steinle 35 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arpaio v. Steinle 35 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
incidental burden on First Amendment rights do not run afoul of the First Amendment if they further "an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the *491 suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.” -21, ¶ 98 , -07 (App.1999) (citing United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 687-88 , 105 S.Ct.
State Ex Rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage 30 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage 30 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 11 , (noting that the risk of inconsistent decisions and the promotion of judicial economy are appropriate considerations in determining whether special action jurisdiction should be accepted); Ariz. Dep’t of Pub.
Andrews v. Willrich 29 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by