Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kpnx Broadcasting v. Superior Court, Etc., 678 P.2d 431.

37 citing documents.

Dragoons v. 1881 Preserve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Dragoons v. 1881 Preserve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Phx Newspapers v. Hon otis/allen 413 P.3d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx Newspapers v. Hon otis/allen 413 P.3d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
see also Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. U.S. Dist.
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Superior Court, and Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County 330 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. Superior Court, , , 435 (1984) (appeal challenging orders prohibiting participants in criminal case from contacting media and requiring television station to submit courtroom sketches to superior court before being broadcast not moot even though trial was over).
Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium District 912 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium District 912 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Id.; , , 435 (1984) (holding that an issue that will evade review is not subject to the mootness doctrine); (holding that the mootness doctrine is a product of judicial policy and not constitutional manda
In re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JV-94000086 898 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JV-94000086 898 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
3 Although juvenile has now reached the age of majority and is beyond the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, we retained this appeal for consideration and disposition despite its mootness because it presents an issue that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” , , , 435 (1984).
Trebesch v. Superior Court 855 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Trebesch v. Superior Court 855 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of Cause No. Mh-90-00566 840 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Cause No. Mh-90-00566 840 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
citing Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 546 , 96 S.Ct.
Dunlap v. Superior Court 817 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Dunlap v. Superior Court 817 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Because we believe that the legal issues presented are capable of repetition, , and of significant importance in the administration of criminal justice in this state, we exercise our discretion to retain jurisdiction of petitioner’s special action.
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In KPNX Broadcasting, Co., supra, [ , ], it was held that the media’s right of access to criminal trials does not extend to interviewing trial participants.
State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 97036-02 792 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Maricopa County Health Department v. Harmon 750 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Maricopa County Health Department v. Harmon 750 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
(“It is firmly established that jurisdiction is not necessarily defeated simply because the order has expired, if the underlying dispute between the parties is one ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ”).
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-102981 709 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board Ex Rel. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees … 699 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board Ex Rel. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees … 699 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Furthermore, an issue is not moot if it is “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ”
Berry v. Department of Corrections 697 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Berry v. Department of Corrections 697 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
An issue is not moot if it is “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ”
State v. Valenzuela 695 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
State v. Valenzuela 695 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
We have discretion to decide issues which have become moot and will use that discretion where the issues are important, where they affect the public interest, and where the problem is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” KPNX *45 , , 435 (1984).
Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1984
Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1984
(media became intervenors).
Brice v. Superior Court 678 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1984
KPNX Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court 678 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Brice v. Superior Court 678 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1984