Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite King v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA, 502 P.2d 529.

38 citing documents.

Coffee v. Ryan-Touhill 445 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Coffee v. Ryan-Touhill 445 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
King v. Superior Court , , 493, , 530 (1972) ("[I]t is always possible that the trial judge may subconsciously resent the lawyer or defendant who got the judgment reversed.
Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
efore Rule 42(f) was amended to allow a peremptory change of judge as of right, the same peremptory challenge ‘was accomplished by an affidavit of bias and prejudice which was a mere form and not intended or required to be true.’ Yet, such affidavits were also used as true challenges for cause.”
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(agreeing “a mistrial places the parties in the same position as if the case had never been tried”).
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Distinguished State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(Bernstein, C.J., dissenting) (noting “[t]here is a critical distinction between a new trial and a mistrial,” because latter entails no judgment or sentence having been rendered by court).
Smith v. Mitchell 148 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Smith v. Mitchell 148 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶7 P.2d 529 (1972), where our supreme court explained the importance of the right to a change of judge after remand.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See, , American Buyers Life Ins.
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 921 P.2d 21 Ariz. 1996
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 921 P.2d 21 Ariz. 1996
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Before Rule 42(f) was amended to allow a peremptory change of judge as of right, the same peremptory challenge “was accomplished by an affidavit of bias and prejudice which was a mere form and not intended or required to be true.”
Valenzuela v. Brown 919 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Valenzuela v. Brown 919 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Flagel v. Southwest Clinical Physiatrists, P.C. 755 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Flagel v. Southwest Clinical Physiatrists, P.C. 755 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Guarrascio v. Fisher 741 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Guarrascio v. Fisher 741 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Our supreme court has previously construed this rule to mean that “the right to a peremptory challenge against the trial judge is lost as soon as the parties have reason to know how he feels about any aspect of the merits of the case.”
Rhodes v. Fisher 681 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rhodes v. Fisher 681 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Dudley v. Superior Court 597 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1979
Dudley v. Superior Court 597 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1979
s right to change of judge as a matter of right when, after a judge is assigned to preside at trial or is otherwise permanently assigned to the action, the party participates before that judge in: (i) Any judicial proceeding which concerns the merits of the action and involves the consideration of evidence or of affidavits; * * * * * * In King v. Superior Court, in and for the County of Maricopa, , we commented in this fashion on Rule 42(f): ***** what the rule means is that the right to a perem
Schwager v. Christoffel 536 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
In Re Guardianship of Styer 536 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
In Re Guardianship of Styer 536 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
the court stated: "Prior to our amendment of R.C.P.
Schwager v. Christoffel 536 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
the court stated: “Prior to our1 amendment of R.C.P.
Tyler v. Fred Harvey, Inc. 514 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Tyler v. Fred Harvey, Inc. 514 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hickox v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 505 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hickox v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 505 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
the Arizona Supreme Court stated the rule as to change of judge prevailing prior to the enactment of Rule 42(f), stipra: “Prior to our amendment to R.C.P.