DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lopez, 393 P.2d 263.

55 citing documents.

  • State v. Harries Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Harries Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    doing so would violate double jeopardy); –68 (1926) (restricting application of Condos to exclude suspension or modification of a valid, executed sentence); –24, 429 (1928) (restating the Condos rule and clarifying that the superior court nevertheless loses jurisdiction once an appeal is perfected); see also, –72 (1964)
  • Stewart v. Superior Court 787 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Stewart v. Superior Court 787 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Brooks 777 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Brooks 777 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
  • State v. Superior Court 598 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Superior Court 598 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    452 , approved, , , no longer was viable since we now have specific rules for post-conviction relief.
  • Matter of Estate of Condry 574 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Matter of Estate of Condry 574 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Zebrowski 539 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Zebrowski 539 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Swingle 514 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Swingle 514 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1973
    This court has stated: “* * * the trial court in the absence of a specific rule or statute has inherent jurisdiction to modify and vacate its own judgments and orders in criminal cases, in accordance with Rule 60(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, unless such jurisdiction is sooner terminated by the perfecting of an appeal to the appellate court.”
  • Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
  • Burkhardt v. Burkhardt 510 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1973
    While the trial court is given the power' under the rule to vacate, modify, or set aside its judgments, and the rule is applicable to both civil and criminal cases, , this power is subject to the exception that upon perfecting of an appeal the trial court loses jurisdiction of the case.
  • Hemmer v. Superior Court 499 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Hemmer v. Superior Court 499 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    We held, citing the Arizona Supreme Court’s , that the only exception to a trial court’s inherent jurisdiction to modify and vacate its own judgments in criminal cases, in accordance with Rule 60(c), is where an ap *553 peal to the appellate court has been perfected.
  • State v. Wheeler 498 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Wheeler 498 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1972
    -172 , -266 (1964), we held the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to modify or vacate its order pursuant to Rule 60(c) of Civil Procedure, unless jurisdiction is terminated by the perfection of an appeal.
  • State v. Hanley 493 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Hanley 493 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1972
    This court has stated: “ * * * the trial court in the absence of a specific rule or statute has inherent jurisdiction to modify and vacate its own judgments and orders in criminal cases, in accordance with Rule 60(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, unless such jurisdiction is sooner terminated by the perfecting of an appeal to the appellate court.”
  • State v. Lerch 490 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Lerch 490 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    at 172 , at 265 (1964); at 214 , , at 908 (1964).
  • State v. Hogue 479 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Hogue 479 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1971
    at 172 , at 265 (1964); at 214 , , at 908 (1964).
  • Skinner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 475 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1970
  • Skinner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 475 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1970
  • Belcher v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1970
  • Belcher v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Ramos 463 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Bustamante 462 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Ramos 463 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Bustamante 462 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Hill 461 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Hill 461 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Brown 451 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Brown 451 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    the court held that: “ * * * the trial court in the absence of a specific rule or statute has inherent jurisdiction to modify and vacate its own judgments and order in criminal cases, in accordance with Rule 60(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, unless such jurisdiction is sooner te
  • State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    Evidence and instructions “The law of evidence and the law relating to instructions to the jury in civil actions shall apply to criminal actions except as otherwise provided.” at 172 , at 265 (1964), at 214 , , at 908 (1964).
  • State v. Dixon 431 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Dixon 431 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Moreno 430 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Moreno 430 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
    239 P. 1032 ; , 265 P. 622 .
  • State v. Neil 425 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Pill 425 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Pill 425 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    State v. Adams, 4 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Adams 419 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966