Cited by

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

102 citing documents.

State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
only where the issues raised in the petition are such that justice cannot be satisfactorily obtained by other means.”
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(4) (supreme court has jurisdiction over special action if there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy by appeal); , (jurisdiction accepted if “ ‘justice cannot be satisfactorily obtained by other means’ ”)
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(trial court that concludes it made an erroneous ruling may grant new trial to prevent miscarriage of justice).
Polacke v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Polacke v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
However, special action jurisdiction is appropriate when the *219 trial court’s ruling cannot be justified under any rule of law, -50 , -90 (1983), and when granting of special action relief will effectively terminate the litigation.
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
We continue to believe that in all but the exceptional case, , 150 n. 3, 673 P.2d *303 787, 790 n. 3 (1983), the appellate system should exercise its discretion to refuse jurisdiction of cases in which it is asked to review the factual or even legal basis of the trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment.
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 800 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1990
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 800 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1990
See, , 149-50 and n. 3, , 789-90 and n. 3 (1983).
Dusold v. Porta-John Corp. 807 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Dusold v. Porta-John Corp. 807 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
150 n. 3, , 790 n. 3 (1983).
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum 793 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1990
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum 793 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1990
State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Criticized State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
to accept jurisdiction is discretionary and may be invoked to correct a plain and obvious error of the trial court, , or when the trial court’s order "is without precedent or support in the law and cannot be justified.” , -50
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
We conclude that the court’s rulings were “without precedent or support in the law and [cannot] be justified.”
Cravens, Dargan & Co. v. Superior Court 737 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1987
Cravens, Dargan & Co. v. Superior Court 737 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1987
Hamilton v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 741 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1987
Hamilton v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 741 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Gockley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 725 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1986
Gockley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 725 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1986
See Rule 3, State Bar Committee note
La Raia v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 722 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1986
La Raia v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 722 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1986
Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
Sees v. KTUC, INC. 714 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sees v. KTUC, INC. 714 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
This is so, defendants contend, because “a judgment on the merits of an issue generally precludes relitigation of that issue in a subsequent suit.”
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
We generally accept jurisdiction of petitions for special action only where the issues raised are such that “justice cannot be satisfactorily obtained by other means.”
Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Boone v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 700 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1985
Boone v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 700 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1985
State v. Coconino Cty. Superior Ct., Div. II 678 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1984
State v. Coconino Cty. Superior Ct., Div. II 678 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1984
Phoenix Gen. Hosp. v. Super. Ct. of Maricopa 675 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1984
Phoenix General Hospital v. Superior Court 675 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1984
Phoenix Gen. Hosp. v. Super. Ct. of Maricopa 675 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1984
Phoenix General Hospital v. Superior Court 675 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1984
Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 682 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 682 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Kpnx Broadcasting v. Superior Court, Etc. 678 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1984
Fuenning v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983