Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt, 987 P.2d 218.

33 citing documents.

Mason v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mason v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 9 (App. 1999) (explaining that a victim’s right to refuse a pretrial interview protects the victim’s privacy and shields him or her from unwanted contact with the victimizer).
Morales v. Hon coffey/state 535 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Morales v. Hon coffey/state 535 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
JURISDICTION ¶6 Accepting special action jurisdiction is discretionary, ¶ 5 (App. 1999), but appropriate when a party lacks “an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal,” Ariz. R.P.
Jennings v. Hon agne/al-furaji 520 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jennings v. Hon agne/al-furaji 520 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
JURISDICTION ¶4 Accepting special action jurisdiction is discretionary, ¶ 5 (App. 1999), and appropriate when a party lacks “an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal,” Ariz. R.P.
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
E.L. v. Hon Carman 500 P.3d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
E.L. v. Hon Carman 500 P.3d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 5 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 7 (App. 1999) (“[I]n some cases some victims’ rights may be required to give way to a defendant’s federal constitutional rights.”).
Z.W. v. Foster 422 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶¶ 1-2, see also Ariz. R. P. Spec.
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Duncan 269 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Duncan 269 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 7 , (“[I]n some cases some victims’ rights may be required to give way to a defendant’s federal constitutional rights.”) (emphasis added).
State of Arizona v. Mark Dwayne Gannon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Dwayne Gannon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(“Arizona‟s appellate courts have considered the victim‟s right to decline a defense interview „absolute.‟”) 6 ¶11 The Franklins argue the scope of the VBR does not protect victims from civil deposit
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto 58 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto 58 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 49 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 49 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Schneider 45 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Schneider 45 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 7 , (“[I]n some cases some victims’ rights may be required to give way to a defendant’s federal constitutional rights.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by