Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite University of Arizona Health Sciences Center v. Superior Court, 667 P.2d 1294.

72 citing documents.

E.L. v. Hon Carman 500 P.3d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
E.L. v. Hon Carman 500 P.3d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ct., and where the petitioner has no effective appellate remedy, see Nataros v. Super.
Perry v. Honorable Emmet Ronan 234 P.3d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Perry v. Honorable Emmet Ronan 234 P.3d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
of Arizona v. Superior Court (Heimann)
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
May v. McNally 49 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
May v. McNally 49 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
v. Superior Court, , (accepting special action jurisdiction over matter of important public interest that turns entirely on legal issues).
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
v. Superior Ct., , (The supreme court may appropriately consider matters of important public interest that turn entirely on legal issues in a special action.).
Munroe v. Galati 938 P.2d 1114 Ariz. 1997
Munroe v. Galati 938 P.2d 1114 Ariz. 1997
Thus, while “there is a substantial argument to be made over the adequacy of review by appeal ..., the factors mentioned above and the resulting cost and delay to all parties if normal appellate procedures were utilized and the case then had to be retried militate in favor of exercising our discretion to accept jurisdiction.”
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Rodriguez 844 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Rodriguez 844 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Goode v. Alfred 828 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Goode v. Alfred 828 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Because we conclude that it does and because the issue is based on legal principles instead of controverted issues of fact and is a matter of statewide importance, we accept jurisdiction, , and deny relief, affirming the respondent court’s reversal of the Pima County Justice court’s dismissal of various criminal and civil charges against petitioner Gilbert Goode.
State v. Brown 840 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Brown 840 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Matera v. Superior Court 825 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matera v. Superior Court 825 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State ex rel. Dean v. Hantman 819 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State ex rel. Dean v. Hantman 819 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Nichols 819 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Nichols 819 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Because this is a matter of statewide importance, relating to legal as opposed to factual issues, , and because we find that the superi- or court has acted in excess of its legal authority, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.
Cacavas v. Bowen 811 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Mullet v. Miller 816 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Mullet v. Miller 816 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Cacavas v. Bowen 811 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Warner 812 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Warner 812 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Lewis v. Warner 802 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Lewis v. Warner 802 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
WALKER BY PIZANO v. Mart 790 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1990
WALKER BY PIZANO v. Mart 790 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1990
Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
See Rule 1, Ariz.R.P.Spec.Action, 17B A.R.S.; , Davis v. Winkler, 164 Ariz. —, (Ct.App.Jan.
Davis v. Winkler 793 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Davis v. Winkler 793 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp. 774 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1989
Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp. 774 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1989