Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 624 P.2d 1264.

40 citing documents.

State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
see also United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 130 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Carrasco 33 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Carrasco 33 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Cannon 963 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cannon 963 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Sabalos 874 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Sabalos 874 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Bower v. Arizona State School for the Deaf & the Blind 704 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Bower v. Arizona State School for the Deaf & the Blind 704 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See Rule 1, Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17A A.R.S.
State v. Stanhope 676 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Stanhope 676 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 678 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 678 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Villarreal 666 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Villarreal 666 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
“A trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal ‘if reasonable minds can differ on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence.’ ” , ( , ).
State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Latino, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
The Arizona Supreme Court accepted defendant’s petition for review and, although it vacated this court’s opinion, it nonetheless ordered reinstatement of the jury verdict
State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Jimenez 634 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1981
State v. Jimenez 634 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1981
the Chevrolet, that the occupants of the Chevrolet were obeying all laws when the pursuit first began and that there was, therefore, no flight from the robbery, “but only an unrelated flight from the pursuing officers.” We have held that a trial court should not grant a motion for acquittal “if reasonable minds can differ on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence.”