Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite King v. Superior Court, 673 P.2d 787.

102 citing documents.

Alan v. Lober Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Alan v. Lober Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs 542 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs 542 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
Co., 148 Ariz. at 573; Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2006); Restatement § 27.
Atwood v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶11 Courts generally accept jurisdiction over a special-action petition "where the issues raised in the petition are such that justice cannot be satisfactorily obtained by other means," or where "no 'equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal' exists," Home Builders Ass'n of Cent.
Dole v. Hon. blair/dole 463 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
However, “jurisdiction is frequently accepted when under no rule of law can a trial court’s actions be justified.” King v. Superior Court (Bauer), -50 (1983).
Gray, ed.D. v. Abpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gray, ed.D. v. Abpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Berkley v. Koenig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Berkley v. Koenig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“If a trial judge realizes that an erroneous ruling has been made, he must act to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”).
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See King v. Superior Court (Bauer), -50 , -90 (1983) (“[Special action] jurisdiction is frequently accepted when under no rule of law can a trial court’s actions be justified.”); ¶ 6 , (“Special action relief is appropriate if the respondent judge has abused her disc
Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Allegations concerning such omissions are, thus, necessarily not essential to the judgment on a motion for a new trial.” (affirming the denial of a motion for new trial under analogous Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 59).
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
One such exception is when ‘the question presented is a pure issue of law and the error by the trial court is patent.’” Id., n.3, n.3 (1983).
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
One such exception is when “the question presented is a pure issue of law and the error 2 by the trial court is patent.” P.2d 787 (1983).
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
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ct., , (citing Nataros v. Super.
Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt 987 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt 987 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Davis v. Davis 985 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Davis v. Davis 985 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(citations and footnote omitted).
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
We generally accept special action jurisdiction “only in those cases in which ‘justice cannot be satisfactorily obtained by other means,’ ” , ( , ), and may accept jurisdiction if doing so would conserve judicial resources.
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(If the verdict is contrary to the weight of evidence, it is the court’s duty to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.).
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
( , (injustice is a factor in granting special action review)).
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
3, State Bar Comm, note; , State ex rel.
HARRIS TRUST BANK OF AZ v. Superior Court 933 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
HARRIS TRUST BANK OF AZ v. Superior Court 933 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
Id., State Bar Committee Notes
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
Id., State Bar Committee Notes
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993