Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Francisco v. State, 556 P.2d 1.

37 citing documents.

State v. Zaman 984 P.2d 528 Ariz. 1999
State v. Zaman 984 P.2d 528 Ariz. 1999
¶2 In reaching its conclusion
Navajo Nation v. MacDonald 885 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Navajo Nation v. MacDonald 885 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
Begay v. Roberts 807 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Begay v. Roberts 807 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
3 , he maintains that Arizona has no authority to utilize its service of process laws on an Indian reservation, and that a more recent Arizona Supreme Court case, Dixon v. Picopa Constr.
Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. 772 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1989
Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. 772 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1989
Picopa contends that it is settled Arizona law that our service of process provisions have no effect on Indian reservations, at least when the party to be served is an Indian living on that reservation.
Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. 755 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz County 731 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz County 731 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Kuykendall v. Tim's Buick, Pontiac, GMC, & Toyota, Inc. 719 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Kuykendall v. Tim's Buick, Pontiac, GMC, & Toyota, Inc. 719 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
This constitutional provision is “a disclaimer of ‘only the state’s proprietary interest in Indian lands and not its governmental interest.’ ”
United States v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty. 697 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1985
United States v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty. 697 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1985
we reviewed our previous cases, , 271 P. 411 (1928), and concluded that we have consistently construed the words in question as a disclaimer of “only the state’s proprietary interest in Indian lands and not its governmental interest.” Id.
Val/Del, Inc. v. Superior Court 703 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Val/Del, Inc. v. Superior Court 703 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
562, 568 , 7 L.Ed.2d 573, 581 (1962)
Smith Plumbing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 720 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Smith Plumbing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 720 P.2d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Endischee v. Endischee 685 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Endischee v. Endischee 685 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
our Supreme Court held that a deputy sheriff is without authorization to serve process within the boundaries of an Indian reservation.
S. Unique, Ltd. v. Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 674 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
S. Unique, Ltd. v. Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 674 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
As part of its motion to dismiss the complaint, the Indian corporation alleged that the service of process was insufficient
Nenna v. Moreno 647 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Nenna v. Moreno 647 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
as support for her contention that the superior court has subject matter jurisdiction in a reciprocal support proceeding.
Battese v. Apache County 630 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1981
Battese v. Apache County 630 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1981
we construed a similar proviso contained in Arizona’s Enabling Act as disclaiming “...
State v. Herber 598 P.2d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Herber 598 P.2d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
This court originally reversed appellant’s
State v. Herber 590 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1979
State v. Herber 590 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1979
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker 585 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker 585 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Matter of Duryea 563 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1977
Matter of Duryea 563 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1977
They appeared in court, with counsel