Cited by

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

102 citing documents.

Parra v. Mancillas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Parra v. Mancillas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 4 (App. 2002)); see Ariz. R.P.
Arizona Preservation Foundation; Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation v. Pima Community College Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Arizona Preservation Foundation; Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation v. Pima Community College Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa 560 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa 560 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Maricopa v. Hon. Ainley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Maricopa v. Hon. Ainley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Superior Court (Landeros), ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
State v. Hon gordon/owen 544 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Hon gordon/owen 544 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 4 (App. 2002) (“Special 1 The record contains video evidence of the accident, which shows the light for traffic crossing perpendicular across the highway in front of Owen and the Jeep turned green before the accident, which in turn supports the municipal court’s conclusion that the light Owen was facing must
J v. v. Hon blair/morris 536 P.3d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
J v. v. Hon blair/morris 536 P.3d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Saguaro v. Hon. bachus/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Saguaro v. Hon. bachus/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Superior Court (Landeros), ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
State v. Santillanes 522 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Santillanes 522 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Our special action jurisdiction is discretionary and is proper when “the [petitioning] party has no plain, adequate or speedy remedy by appeal.” ¶ 4 (App. 2002) (citing Ariz. R. P. Spec.
Cyber Ninjas v. Hon. Hannah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cyber Ninjas v. Hon. Hannah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Our decision to accept special action jurisdiction is discretionary and 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 v. Superior Court (Landeros), ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Our decision to accept special action jurisdiction is discretionary, and it 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 v. Superior Court (Landeros), ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
Maricopa v. Hon. viola/el Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Maricopa v. Hon. viola/el Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Acceptance of 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 v. Superior Court (Landeros), ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 4 (App. 2002) (“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.”)).
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Romley v. Martin , , ¶ 4, : whether the exclusionary rule is a remedy for the warrantless taking of a breath test incident to a lawful arrest but in violation of A.R.S.
Barnes v. Bernini 426 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Barnes v. Bernini 426 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Romley v. Martin , , ¶ 4
Alsarraf v. Bernini 421 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Alsarraf v. Bernini 421 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Romley v. Martin , , ¶ 4, aff'd
Diaz v. Bernini 419 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Diaz v. Bernini 419 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Romley v. Martin , , ¶ 4, aff'd
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Romley v. Martin , , 47, ¶ 4, , 1143 (App. 2002), and there is no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal, see Ariz. R.P.
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Romley v. Martin , , 47, ¶ 4, aff'd , , special action is a criminal defendant's only avenue for review of a denial of a motion to redetermine probable cause.
State v. Hon kemp/davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon kemp/davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon ainley/head Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon ainley/head Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 4, (“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 on other grounds, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 4 , (“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.”), affd
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Pinal County Board of Supervisors v. Georgini and T.J. 334 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Pinal County Board of Supervisors v. Georgini and T.J. 334 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014