DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

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 Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    ¶ 22 , (evaluating physician may not be an acquaintance witness).
  • In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    See In re MH 2001-001139, ¶22 , (evaluating physician may not be an acquaintance witness).
  • In re MH 2006-002044 170 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In re MH 2006-002044 170 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8
  • Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 158 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 158 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    Our reluctance to interpret a rule or statute in a manner that renders any part of it superfluous, see In re Maricopa County No. MH 2001-001139, leads us to the only logically available conclusion: Rule 64(C) implicitly authorizes the juvenile court, in accordance with the procedure described in Rules 65(C)(6)(c) and 66(D)(2), to terminate the parental rights of a parent who, like Adrian, fails to appear without good ca
  • In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Ct. No. MN 2001-001139, ¶ 12
  • In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Ct. No. MN XXXX-XXXXXX, ¶ 12
  • In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See In re Maricopa County No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8
  • In re MH 2006-000023 150 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In re MH 2006-000023 150 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, , 353 ¶ 8
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MN 2001-001139, ¶ 12 , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    E.g., In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 17 , (“A cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to avoid, if possible, an interpretation which renders superfluous any portion of a statute.”).
  • Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa County 88 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa County 88 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    “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.” In re Maricopa County Superior *557 Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 12
  • In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2003-000058 84 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2003-000058 84 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    In this case, the express statutory requirements take on added significance “[bjecause involuntary treatment proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of appellant’s liberty interests [.]” Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, , (citing In re Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1091 (1995)).
  • Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    See In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 12 , (“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.”).
  • In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH XXXX-XXXXXX 69 P.3d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH XXXX-XXXXXX 69 P.3d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    “Because involuntary treatment proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of appellant’s liberty interests, statutory requirements must be strictly met.” In re Maricopa Superior Court Number MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8
  • Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 8 “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.” In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 12