DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fenton v. Howard, 575 P.2d 318.

25 citing documents.

  • Az Electric Power v. Djl 2007 443 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Az Electric Power v. Djl 2007 443 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 12- 349(A)(3); (“Every court has inherent power to do those things which are necessary for the efficient exercise of its jurisdiction.”); –48 (1931) (same); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 8 (App. 2012) (recognizing that a trial court retains the inherent power to ensure its orders are followed); (“Every court has inherent power to do those things which are necessary for the efficient exercise of its jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)).
  • Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona 287 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona 287 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    §§ 12-122, 12-123(B); (“Every court has inherent power to do those things which are necessary for the efficient exercise of its jurisdiction.”); Sheehan 4 v. Flower, (“[A] court may exercise its inherent contemp
  • In Re Esther Caplan Trust 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Bistrow v. Sova 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Bistrow v. Sova 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    See, , -97 (1952) (remanding records dispute and directing documents to be produced “for the private examination of the trial judge in order that the court may determine whether [the documents] are confidential and privileged or whether their disclosure would be detrimental to the best interests of the state.”); , (in camera review is appropriate for balancing a litigant’s need for information against the Conciliation Court’s right to “function effectively” by not disclosing non-privileged infor
  • In Re Esther Caplan Trust 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    See, , -97 (1952) (remanding records dispute and directing documents to be produced "for the private examination of the trial judge in order that the court may determine whether [the documents] are confidential and privileged or whether their disclosure would be detrimental to the best interests of the state."); , ( in camera review is appropriate for balancing a litigant's need for information against the Conciliation Court's right to "function effectively" by not disclosing non-privileged info
  • STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Kiger 229 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Kiger 229 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ("Every court has inherent power to do those things which are necessary for the efficient exercise of its jurisdiction."); , (Inherent powers are those that are "indispensable if a court is to perform the duties s
  • Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    Although it may be trae as a general proposition that trial courts have inherent authority to enter orders that facilitate the orderly and efficient execution of them jurisdiction, , , the supreme court has been given the exclusive power to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.
  • Riley, Hoggatt & Suagee, P.C. v. English 864 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1993
  • Hurles v. Superior Court 849 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Hurles v. Superior Court 849 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    The “defense-of-policy” response is illustrated by the first of the pertinent cases
  • Dunn v. Superior Court 772 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Criticized Dunn v. Superior Court 772 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Bain v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 714 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1986
  • Bain v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 714 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1986
    vacated on other grounds, , UDALL & LIVERMORE, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE, § 71.
  • Klaiber v. Orzel 714 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1986
  • Klaiber v. Orzel 714 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1986
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. CITY COURT, ETC. 598 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. CITY COURT, ETC. 598 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    wherein the court stated: “We hold that a judge does have the right to appear and to be represented in a special action against him, where the judge is a named respondent.” 575 P.2d at 320 .