Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kosidlo v. Kosidlo, 607 P.2d 1.

24 citing documents.

Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Spring v. Bradford 388 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 37-38, 98 S. Ct. 2156, 2162 (1978)
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
at 346-47 , 409 P.2d at 62-63 (even if denial of change of venue could be raised an appeal, no reversal absent prejudice); , disapproved in part on other grounds, , (failing to sequester witnesses not reversible absent prejudice); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 20 Ariz.App.
Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Although, in general, jeopardy attaches when the jury is impaneled, , the double jeopardy clause does not ordinarily bar retrial when a court grants a mistrial on defendant’s motion.
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Styers v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MOHAVE 779 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Styers v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MOHAVE 779 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
disapproved on other grounds, , (Husband refused to use a checking account, insisted on cash transactions, secreted large amounts of cash, and evaded questions about community assets.
State v. Givens 778 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
State v. Johnson 745 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1987
1075 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976)
Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Board 732 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Board 732 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
McLaughlin v. Fahringer 723 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1986
Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
The wife contended that such a sanction is proper under the authority of a decision by division two of this court, , modified , in which an award of attorney’s fees was made in order to compensate a spouse for the costs arising from a search for concealed assets.
State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
State v. Wilson 658 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Appellants argue that the cases have been inconsistent regarding this standard, and that they require variously that the prosecutor’s motives be either; (1) to avoid an acquittal in the present trial, see United States v. Jorn, supra; , , or (2) to harrass the defendant, see State v. White, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. La Mountain 611 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1980
State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980