Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bruce v. State, 614 P.2d 813.

49 citing documents.

Ortega v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ortega v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
see also Gilchrist v. Jim Slemons Imps., Inc., 803 F.2d 1488, 1497 3 ORTEGA V. ROBLES Decision of the Court (9th Cir. 1986) (“[A] preemption argument that affects the choice of forum rather than the choice
Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Although the juvenile court had summarily concluded Arizona was T.D.’s home state, because the parties had not addressed the issue, we stayed the appeal and remanded to allow the juvenile court to conduct further proceedings to determine its jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.1 (“Jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.”).
Lay v. Hon. nelson/state 436 P.3d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lay v. Hon. nelson/state 436 P.3d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(in dictum, characterizing § 22-301 as establishing the jurisdiction of justice court); -15 (1925) (provision in 1913 territorial code referring to "offenses .
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Bruce v. State , , 272, , 814 (1980).
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
1Our supreme court has found that misdemeanor assault is “the equivalent of a simple battery at common law, which was not a crime requiring a jury trial.”
State v. Maldonado 219 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Maldonado 219 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
BUCCELLATO v. Morgan 203 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
BUCCELLATO v. Morgan 203 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Fushek v. State 159 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Fushek v. State 159 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The Arizona Supreme Court has held that a misdemeanor assault is “the equivalent of a simple battery at common law, which was not a crime requiring a jury trial.” , accord Phoenix City Prosecutor’s ¶¶ 6-8
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 7 , involved a defendant charged with, among other counts, two counts of misdemeanor assault.
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
the defendant was charged in city court with two counts of simple assault.
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Solomon v. Findley 796 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Solomon v. Findley 796 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Harrison 792 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Harrison 792 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
State Ex Rel. Dean v. Dolny 778 P.2d 1193 Ariz. 1989
State v. City Court of Tucson 760 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. City Court of Tucson 760 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
the supreme court held that “where a defendant is charged with several petty offenses, factually related or arising out of a single event, there is no constitutional requirement of a jury trial but the actual punishment may not exceed that which would be permissible without a jury trial in case
State v. Mercurio 736 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Mercurio 736 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
(the subject matter jurisdiction of the Tucson City Court is limited by Article VI, § 32 of the Arizona Constitution, which, by its terms applies to justice of the peace courts and courts inferior to the superior court).
State v. Buckley 734 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Buckley 734 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Frey 686 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Frey 686 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
(focus is on term of imprisonment actually imposed) is inapposite to this case.
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of Tucson 687 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of Tucson 687 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Bau-mert v. Superior Court in and for Mari-copa County, supra (disorderly conduct); , (simple assault); Goldman v. Kautz, supra (simple assault and battery); State v. Moreno, supra (possession of marijuana); City of Phoenix v. Jones, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Moreno 655 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Calloway v. City Court 632 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Spronken v. City Court 633 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Spronken v. City Court 633 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Calloway v. City Court 632 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
the trial court held that the city court lacked jurisdiction to try the offense because the charges alleged, inter alia, that appellee resisted arrest by using or threatening to use physical force against a peace officer.