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. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 619 P.2d 3.

26 citing documents.

  • Halloum v. Hasasneh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Halloum v. Hasasneh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (holding that the “resetting of a trial date does not change the date by which pretrial motions must be filed unless so ordered by the trial court”).
  • State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
  • State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
    (“Rule 28.2 [is] therefore irrelevant to defendant’s pretrial motion for discovery or in the alternative to suppress.”).
  • State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Youngblood 734 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Youngblood 734 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    We note, however, that Rule 28.2(e), Ariz. R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S., governing the disposition of evidence in the custody of the state following the adjudication of charges, , requires 10 days’ notice “to any person, and his counsel against whom the item has been or may be used as evidence.” The parties’ stipulation that the car was impounded, later released to the towing company and then dismantled and sold because the registered owner did not claim it, does not affect
  • Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1986
  • Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1986
  • Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Rule 28.2 was therefore irrelevant to defendant’s pretrial motion for discovery or in the alternative to suppress.”
  • State v. Vincent 708 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Vincent 708 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    the state first argues that defendant’s motion was untimely under Rule 16.1(e), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., and, therefore, the trial court erred in even considering it.
  • State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
    for the proposition that the 20-day time limit is computed from the first trial setting and not from the date the trial actually commences.
  • State v. Fowler 670 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Fowler 670 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Young 661 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Young 661 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    State v. Superior Court (McKinzie)
  • State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980