Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin, 49 P.3d 1142.

102 citing documents.

State v. Hon. mroz/saldate/milke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. mroz/saldate/milke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
¶¶ 4–5, (accepting special action review of in-limine rulings that prior convictions could not be used for impeachment), aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland 310 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland 310 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”).
Jordan v. McClennen 307 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Jordan v. McClennen 307 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona State Hospital v. Klein 296 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona State Hospital v. Klein 296 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona 287 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona 287 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”), aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 4 , ¶ 35 , (after finding appellate jurisdiction lacking, court sua sponte accepted special action jurisdiction).
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”), aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Jennifer Braillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Jennifer Braillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Simon 270 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Simon 270 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Fogliano v. BRAIN EX REL. CTY. OF MARICOPA 270 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Fogliano v. BRAIN EX REL. CTY. OF MARICOPA 270 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal 1 We have cited the current versions of the statutes applicable to this opinion, as their relevant provisions have not changed
State of Arizona v. Daniel Oliveri Michael Joseph Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Miller 245 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Daniel Oliveri Michael Joseph Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Miller 245 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry No Travmed USA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry No Travmed USA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
aff'd, , (accepting jurisdiction of state’s petition to determine whether defendant may be impeached with prior felony convictions, finding state had no plain, speedy or adequate remedy by appeal).
State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”).
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”).
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
("Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.’’), aff'd
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
¶4 , (citing State ex rel.
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
) ) __________________________________) Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One P.2d 1142 AFFIRMED _____ RICHARD M. ROMLEY, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY Phoenix By Diane Gunnels Rowley, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Petitioner JAMES J. HAAS, MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
¶ 4 , and of statewide importance, , that requires statutory interpretation.