Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Berger v. Superior Court, 529 P.2d 686.

100 citing documents.

Jimenez v. Hon. minder/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Jimenez v. Hon. minder/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(holding that dismissal for a Rule 8 violation is with or without prejudice “depending upon the facts of the case”).
State v. Leota 538 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Leota 538 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Pritchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Pritchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Duran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Duran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hunter 260 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Hunter 260 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
-38 , -89 (1974) (excluded time begins when motion for change of judge filed); -23 , -60 (App.1981) (same).
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
quoting former Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Estrada 930 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Estrada 930 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
(applying this principle to “speedy trial” procedural rules).
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
(“It is not the purpose of the speedy trial provision to enable the guilty to go free on technicalities.”).
State v. Gilbert 837 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Garcia 823 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Garcia 823 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Gilbert 837 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
Andre v. Tucson City Court 797 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Andre v. Tucson City Court 797 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Berger [v. Superior Court, , ], i.e., when a pretrial motion or hearing causes a trial to occur later than expiration of the original Rule 8.2 time limit.
Watts v. Fleischman 778 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1989
Watts v. Fleischman 778 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1989
we held that delays caused by court calendar congestion are excludable only if the procedure outlined by rule 8.4(c) is followed.
State v. Tarkington 760 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Tarkington 760 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Shepherd v. Fahringer 746 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Shepherd v. Fahringer 746 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
: “[I]f there is a deterrent value in conviction and punishment as we believe there is, the swifter the punishment the greater the deterrent; and conversely, the longer criminal trials are prolonged the less deterrent value there is in trial and punishment.” 150 Ariz. at 310 , 723 P.2d a
State v. Bruggeman 744 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Bruggeman 744 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the supreme court took special action jurisdiction of a speedy trial dismissal.
Hinson v. Coulter 723 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1986
Hinson v. Coulter 723 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1986
State v. Olson 705 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Olson 705 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Kangas 704 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Kangas 704 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Aguilar v. Pima County Superior Court 698 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Aguilar v. Pima County Superior Court 698 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Berger \v. Superior Court, , ], i.e., when a pretrial motion or hearing causes a trial to occur later than expiration of the original Rule 8.2 time limit.
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
Schultz v. Peterson, supra; State v. Heise, supra.
State v. Techy 659 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Techy 659 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982