Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Superior Court, 479 P.2d 685.

167 citing documents.

City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
A breathalyzer test is unrelated to a communication by the subject.’ ” , 552 n. 8, , 695 n. 8 (1971) (quoting State v. Kenderski, 99 N.J.Super.
State v. Brito 905 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Brito 905 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
*539 , the supreme court examined the constitutional validity of the implied consent law under the state’s police power.
State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Pearson v. MOTOR VEH., DEPT. OF TRANSP. 889 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pearson v. MOTOR VEH., DEPT. OF TRANSP. 889 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The Arizona Supreme Court has held that driver’s license “suspension proceedings are civil in nature and are therefore governed by the rules of civil procedure.”
Harris v. Schmitt 885 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Harris v. Schmitt 885 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
A refusal occurs when “the conduct of the arrested motorist is such that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified in believing that such motorist was capable of refusal and manifested an unwillingness to submit to the test.”
Valenzuela v. Cowan 877 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Valenzuela v. Cowan 877 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Campbell v. Superior Court
Schade v. Department of Transportation 857 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Schade v. Department of Transportation 857 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
see also Minutes of the Committee on Judiciary, Arizona Senate, April 7,1987, H.B.
Wallace v. Shields 854 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Wallace v. Shields 854 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Schmerber v. California, supra (no fifth amendment violation to take blood); , (no fifth amendment violation to take blood, breath or urine); , (no fifth amendment violation to take fingerprints); State v. Armstrong, 189 Mont.
State v. Nichols 819 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Nichols 819 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
1 , our supreme court upheld the constitutionality of A.R.S.
Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Dano v. Collins 802 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Dano v. Collins 802 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Sherrill v. Department of Transportation 799 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1990
Sherrill v. Department of Transportation 799 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1990
Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Nance, 165 Ariz. at 288 , 798 P.2d at 1297
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 788 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 788 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Robinson v. Prins 777 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Robinson v. Prins 777 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz 542, 549-50, -93 (1971).
State v. Superior Court 763 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Superior Court 763 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Municipal Court of Phoenix v. Waldron 754 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Municipal Court of Phoenix v. Waldron 754 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
The state, , argued that defendant had no right to consult his attorney concerning whether to submit to a breathalyzer test.
Geer v. Ordway 754 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Geer v. Ordway 754 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
a refusal was defined as follows: “[A] refusal to submit to the test occurs where the conduct of the arrested motorist is such that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified in believing that such motorist was capable of refusal and manifested an unwillingness to submit to
State v. Superior Court 747 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1987
State v. Superior Court 747 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1987
1826, 1830 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); , 552 n. 8, , 695 n. 8 (1971).
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987
Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court 744 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1987