Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Berger v. Superior Court, 529 P.2d 686.
- State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Brooks 618 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Brooks 618 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Williams 597 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- State v. Williams 597 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- State v. Johnson 594 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Johnson 594 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Heise 573 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. Heise 573 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. LaBarre 561 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
-
State v. LaBarre
561 P.2d 764
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
holding the time attributable to defendant’s request for a change of judge excludable.
- State v. Mankel 555 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
-
State v. Mankel
555 P.2d 1124
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
our Supreme Court stated: “If Rule 16.7(d) appears to be in conflict with Rule 8, by; this opinion we hold that Rule 8 applies and the prosecution may be dismissed without prejudice even for violations of Rule 8 when the trial court, in its discretion, directs.” Ill Ariz. at 341, 529 P.2d at 692
- State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
-
State v. Sutton
553 P.2d 1216
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Berger v. Superior Court, 111 * , (excludable time counted from the date motions are filed).
- State v. Raffaele 550 P.2d 1060 Ariz. 1976
-
State v. Raffaele
550 P.2d 1060
Ariz. 1976
we vested the trial court with the discretion to dismiss with or without prejudice for violation of Rule 8.
- State v. Lopez 550 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
-
State v. Lopez
550 P.2d 113
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
This case, , indicates that review of an order such as that involved here is available to the State by special action, and, in fact, the nonappealability of the order and the availability of special action proceedings may result in much speedier review of such an order than by means of appeal.
- State v. Mitchell 545 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1976
-
State v. Mitchell
545 P.2d 49
Ariz. 1976
Berger v. Superior Court, 111 * P.2d 686 (1974).
- State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1976
- State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court 543 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1975
- State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court 543 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Brown 542 P.2d 1100 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Brown 542 P.2d 1100 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Lee 542 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Lee 542 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- STATE DeCONCINI v. Superior Court, Cty. of Pima 541 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- STATE DeCONCINI v. Superior Court, Cty. of Pima 541 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Harris 541 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Harris 541 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Avriett 540 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Hopper 540 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Armenta 540 P.2d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
-
State v. Hopper
540 P.2d 1284
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Berger v. Superior Court, Ariz.
- State v. Armenta 540 P.2d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Avriett 540 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Bainch 536 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
-
State v. Bainch
536 P.2d 709
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
the Arizona Supreme Court discussed Rule 8.-4(c): “Rule 8.4(c) contemplates that the presiding judge shall be apprised of the situation in order for the presiding judge to notify the Chief Justice of the delays.
- State v. Wehrhan 535 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Wehrhan 535 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Chambers 534 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Chambers 534 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court 531 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
-
State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court
531 P.2d 1129
Ariz. 1975
[filed December 20, 1974], Remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.