Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Coconino Cty. Superior Ct., Div. II, 678 P.2d 1386.

92 citing documents.

Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 868 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
§ 1-244; , , 1391 (1984) (legislature must expressly indicate intent to apply statute retroactively).
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
1391 (1984) (statute given retroactive effect only if clear legislative intent to do so).
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
See State v. Coconino County Superior Court, Div. II, *213
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
The case came to us because “[t]he state had difficulty finding a facility which would accept Johnson under the terms of the conditional release order.” State v. Coconino County Superior Court, Div. II, , : Mauro, the real party in interest, had a long history of mental disorders.
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
We note that in State v. Superior Court (Mauro), , this court determined that A.R.S.
Korzep v. Superior Court 746 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Winton 736 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Winton 736 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Kamin 725 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1986
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
Superior Ct., Div. II, , indicates our agreement that the insanity defense is substantive.
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
As a result of this court’s decision in State v. Coconino County Superior Court, Division II (Mauro), , the State retained the burden of proof on this issue.
State v. Cameron 704 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Cameron 704 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Coconino County Superior Court, Division II
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
§ 1-246 provides: “When the penalty for an offense is prescribed by one law and altered by a subsequent law, the penalty of such second law shall not be inflicted for a breach of the law committed before the second took effect, but the offender shall be punished under the law in force when the offense was committed.” , State ex rel.
State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gonzales 687 P.2d 1267 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gonzales 687 P.2d 1267 Ariz. 1984
Unless a statute provides otherwise, “it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.” , , 1391 (1984).
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984