Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phoenix Newspapers Incorporated v. Jennings, 490 P.2d 563.

33 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
–60 (1971) (vacating an order excluding the public and reporters from attending trial); Truax v. Bisbee Local, No. 380, Cooks’ & Waiters’ Union, –94 (1918) (upholding dismissal of a complaint seeking to enjoin peaceful picketing).
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Where the guarantees of the Arizona Constitution are in question, “we first consult our constitution.” Mountain States, 160 Ariz. at 356; see Phoenix Newspapers, (the United States Constitution applied but “[a]rticle II of the Arizona Constitution [was] sufficient to resolve the litigation”); see also Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Super.
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
rt, following the guidance of the United States Supreme Court, has determined that the public may be excluded from a criminal trial if there are circumstances which “establish a clear and present danger that the judicial process will be subverted by an open hearing,” in which case “appropriate action should be taken by a court to preserve judicial integrity.” Phoenix Newspapers, (citing Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945) and Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941)).
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Ritchey, 107 Ariz. at 557
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mountain States, 160 Ariz. at 355-56 , 773 P.2d at 460-61 ; (citing Phoenix Newspapers, , and Phoenix Newspapers, , ).
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
“Clear and present danger means that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high.” , see also Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 633 , 832 P.2d at 650 .
Ridenour v. Schwartz 875 P.2d 1306 Ariz. 1994
Ridenour v. Schwartz 875 P.2d 1306 Ariz. 1994
2814, 2820-23 , 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980); Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1066-71 (3d Cir.1984); Phoenix Newspapers
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
See, , (discussing when right of public to observe court proceeding should be denied); see also The Arizona State Constitution 51 (discussing Arizona cases involving this provision) (citations omitted).
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
Initially, we note that this court has stated that, in the fair trial context, “[c]lear and present danger means that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high____” Phoenix Newspapers
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Phoenix Newspapers, , see also Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 , 100 S.Ct.
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 773 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1989
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 773 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1989
Similarly, in Phoenix Newspapers, , this court again turned to the Arizona Constitution.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
While recognizing the constitutional rights involved here, including those of the news media, see, Phoenix Newspapers, , we are of the opinion that PNI’s argument is overly simplistic for it ignores the inherent power of the court to conduct in camera proceedings.
State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
See also, Phoenix Newspapers, , , , cert.
State v. Freeman 559 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1976
State v. Freeman 559 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1976
Phoenix Newspapers, Incorporated v. Winsor, IV 533 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1975
Phoenix Newspapers, Incorporated v. Winsor, IV 533 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1975
We have previously held that where because of continued dissemination of news which might be harmful there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had, respondent’s remedy, if held to answer for the offense charged, is for a continuance of his trial or a change of venue, Phoenix Newspapers, , .
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Buchanan 528 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Buchanan 528 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State Ex Rel. Berger v. Superior Court 526 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1974
State Ex Rel. Berger v. Superior Court 526 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1974