Cited by

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

181 citing documents.

State v. Ehrlich 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
In Re Leon G. 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ehrlich 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
307 ¶¶ 39, 41, , 793 ¶¶39, 41 (App.1999) (holding that the statute does not raise either double jeopardy or ex post facto problems because it is civil, rather than criminal, in nature); cf. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361-69 , 117 S.Ct.
In Re Leon G. 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
307 ¶¶ 39, 41, , 793 ¶¶ 39, 41 (App.1999) (holding that the statute does not raise either double jeopardy or ex post facto problems because it is civil, rather than criminal, in nature); cf. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361-69 , 117 S.Ct.
In Re Leon G. 18 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Leon G. 18 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-20, ¶¶ 93-94 , , 805-06 *379 (1999).
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993); , 309-10 ¶ 52, -96 (App.1999), review denied.
State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 18 Although the sheriff is correct insofar as he characterizes SVP proceedings as civil in nature, , this does not mean the sheriff may not transport a person detained or committed under the statutes.
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-10, ¶ 52 , -96 (App.1999); Brink Elec.
Walter v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Napolitano 10 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Walter v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
SAL Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Napolitano 10 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 16 , review denied (1999).
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
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
suggests that substantive due process precludes government conduct that shocks the conscience or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
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
Holt v. Hotham 5 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Holt v. Hotham 5 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Cotton 5 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Cotton 5 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 79 , (quoting Grayned, v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct.
Jardanowski v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 3 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Jardanowski v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 3 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
488 , 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997)

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by