DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Broomfield v. Maricopa County, 544 P.2d 1080.

30 citing documents.

  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See, (“It is a settled principle of law that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter must be obeyed by the parties until that order is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.”).
  • Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    follow reasonable county procedures for filling vacancies and in making funding requests, and must pursue “reasonable avenues of cooperation and compromise.” , , , , , , , Lockwood v. Bd.
  • DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    State v. Pima County Adult Prob.
  • Maricopa County v. Tinney 904 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1995
  • Maricopa County v. Tinney 904 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1995
  • Purcell v. Superior Court 835 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Purcell v. Superior Court 835 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lyons 804 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Lyons 804 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1990
  • Maricopa County v. Dann 758 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1988
  • Maricopa County v. Dann 758 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1988
    On June 7, 1988, the board of supervisors, , sought the intervention of this court by filing a special action requesting that the actions of the respondent presiding judge be declared to be unreasonable and arbitrary and that the presiding judge should be directed to comply with the county’s personnel procedures.
  • State v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 708 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 708 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Furthermore, , the supreme court stated that probation officers are part of the judicial function and that the judiciary has inherent power of control over probation officers.
  • Reinhold v. Board of Supervisors 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Reinhold v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NAVAJO CTY. 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Reinhold v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NAVAJO CTY. 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    y the superior court judge); Birdsall v. Pima County, supra, (holding that the board of supervisors had a ministerial duty to approve an order of the judge of the juvenile court fixing new salaries for employees of the juvenile court in the absence of a clear showing that the judge acted unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously in the fixing of salaries)
  • Reinhold v. Board of Supervisors 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    y the superior court judge); Birdsall v. Pima County, supra, (holding that the board of supervisors had a ministerial duty to approve an order of the judge of the juvenile court fixing new salaries for employees of the juvenile court in the absence of a clear showing that the judge acted unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously in the fixing of salaries)
  • Hernandez v. Maricopa County 673 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Hernandez v. Maricopa County 673 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 690 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 690 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    Furthermore, , our supreme court stated that probation officers are part of the judicial function and that the judiciary has inherent power of control over probation officers.
  • State v. Chavez 601 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Chavez 601 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    Such language by our state High Court might well seem to foreclose our inquiry into the collateral attack issue here, , cited by the State, and the fact that other jurisdictions have generally exempted the newspaper injunction from the “collateral bar” rule.
  • Deddens v. Cochise County 546 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1976
  • Deddens v. Cochise County 546 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1976
    We recently faced a similar problem in Broomfield v. Maricopa County, Ariz., where, under A.R.S.