Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Maricopa County Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139, 54 P.3d 380.

78 citing documents.

In Re: Dakota D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Dakota D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In re MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 (App. 2002).
In Re: Mh2024-004594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Mh2024-004594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ct. No. MH 2001-001139, 355 ¶¶ 2, 23 (App. 2002) (holding it was not error for the court to permit hospital nurses who observed patient while he was being detained for evaluation to testify as acquaintance witnesses because they were not part of the “statutory evaluation team” or the “formal evaluation process” per Section 36-501(11)).
In Re Pima County Mental Health No 20200860221 Ariz. 2023
In Re Pima County Mental Health No 20200860221 Ariz. 2023
Superior Ct. No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 (App. 2002) (“Because involuntary treatment proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of appellant’s liberty interests, statutory requirements must be strictly met.”).
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139
In Re: Mh 2020-004882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re: Mh 2020-004882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In re MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 (App. 2002); In re MH 2008- 002596, ¶ 12 (App. 2009).
In Re Mh2020-004756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Mh2020-004756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ct. No. MH 2001–001139, ¶ 8 (App. 2002).
In Re: Mh2020-002060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re: Mh2020-002060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ct. No. MH 2001- 001139, ¶ 8 (App. 2002).
In Re Mh2018-004459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Mh2018-004459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In re MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 (App. 2002).
In Re Mh2015-002490 422 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Mh2015-002490 422 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 12 (App. 2002)).
In Re Mh2015-003266 382 P.3d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In Re Mh2015-003266 382 P.3d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In re MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 (App. 2002).
In Re Pima County Mental Health Cause No. A20020026 352 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
In Re Pima County Mental Health Cause No. A20020026 352 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Superior Court No. MH 2001–001139, the applicable statutes must be strictly followed, In re Maricopa Cnty.
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 312 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 312 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and do not apply any other rule of statutory construction.” Nordstrom, -57, ¶ 10 , -69 (App. 2004) (quoting In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 12 , ).
In re MH2012-002480 306 P.3d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In re MH2012-002480 306 P.3d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In re MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139
In Re Mh2009-002120 237 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh2009-002120 237 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH XXXX-XXXXXX, ¶ 8
In Re Mh 2008-002393 221 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh 2008-002393 221 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 , (citation omitted).
In Re Mh 2008-002596 219 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh 2008-002596 219 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 , In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2003-000058, ¶ 12
In re MH 2008-001795 218 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 218 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 218 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-001795 218 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8
State of Arizona v. James Lewandowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. James Lewandowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Thus, to adopt the state’s argument that the statute permits entry of a CRO at any time before expiration of the defendant’s sentence would render irrelevant the preexisting statutory sections that already provide for the imposition and payment of fines, restitution, and costs during that time—a result we generally seek to avoid.4 In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MN 2001-001139
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 , (citing Alleged Mentally Disordered Person Coconino County No. MH 1425, , ).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH XXXX-XXXXXX, ¶ 8 , (citing Alleged Mentally Disordered Person Coconino County No. MH 1425, , ).
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ct. No. MH 2001-001189, ¶ 17 , (citation omitted).
Bobby G. v. Ades & Allison G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Bobby G. v. Ades & Allison G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
ion is sought once a permanency hearing has begun.” ¶9 “When interpreting a statute, our primary purpose is to ‘effectuate legislative intent,’ and a statute’s plain language is the ‘best evidence of that intent.’” In re Maricopa County Mental Health No. MH 2006-000490, quoting In re Maricopa County Mental Health No. 2001-001139, see also Kimu P., 178 P.3d at 515.
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008