Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-8545, 680 P.2d 146.

74 citing documents.

Jessie D. v. dcs/f v. m.D./m.D./c.D. Ariz. 2021
Jessie D. v. dcs/f v. m.D./m.D./c.D. Ariz. 2021
Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jessica S. v. Dcs, A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jessica S. v. Dcs, A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶13 In the context of dependency proceedings, our supreme court has rejected a “narrow, technical conception of what constitutes a final order.” Matter of Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-8545
Jessicah C. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jessicah C. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Action No. J-8545, –15 (1984) (stating, in finding an order dismissing a dependency is appealable, “an aggrieved party may appeal an order issued pursuant to the juvenile court’s periodic review of a determination of dependency or of a custodial arrangement”) with In re Pima Cty.
Silvino L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Silvino L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Action No. J-8545, -14 (1984).
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
K.C. v. Dcs, Deandra G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
K.C. v. Dcs, Deandra G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Action No. J-8545, (“[D]ue process does not require independent counsel for children in each and every case in which they are involved.
Joshua T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Joshua T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Juvenile Action No. J-8545, Ariz. R.P.
Jewel C. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Jewel C. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Action No. J-8545 , , 14, , 150 (1984).
Daniel L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Daniel L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Action No. J-8545, (“very narrow, technical conception of what constitutes a final order” should not apply “in cases involving the important and fundamental right to raise one’s children;” “A parent denied and redenied control over his or her children must have the right to appeal the initial and subsequent denials.”) with Ma
Armida E. v. Dcs, B.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Armida E. v. Dcs, B.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Action No. J-8545, (allowing interested parties to request counsel for a child); cf. Pima Cty.
Melissa W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Melissa W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Action No. J8545, (holding 3 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.
Shella H. v. Department of Child Safety 366 P.3d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shella H. v. Department of Child Safety 366 P.3d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Action No. J-8545, (holding “orders declaring children dependent .
Lynandra W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynandra W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Action No. J- 8545, (holding “orders declaring children dependent .
Rene Castro v. Hon. Peter J. Hochuli C.C. 343 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Rene Castro v. Hon. Peter J. Hochuli C.C. 343 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Action No. J-8545, ER 1.2(a), Ariz. R. Prof’l Conduct, Ariz. R. Sup.
Daniel F. v. Dcs, C.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Daniel F. v. Dcs, C.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Alicia H. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Alicia H. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Action No. J-8545, in which the court noted the importance of avoiding a technical reading of what constitutes an appealable order in cases 3 ALICIA H. v. ADES et al. Decision of the Court “involving the importan
Mysti B. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mysti B. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
For example, our supreme court not *103 ed in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-8545, , 13 n. 1, , 149 n. 1 (1984), that “[i]n determining whether an order is final under [the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court], we are not bound by the definition employed in determining if an order is final for the purposes of exercising general appellate jurisdiction.” In that case, the co
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Francisco F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 266 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Francisco F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 266 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Action No. J-8545, but rather consider “the practical effect that the .
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In short, were we to conclude the trial court intended to sanction the Sanchezes for violating the witness-disclosure deadline, we would find the sanction it chose unsupported by the factual record before us. See Austin v. City of Scottsdale, 140 Ariz. 10 Under different circumstances, a court might well find ample justification for imposing the sanction of dismissal with prejudice for a plaintiff’s failure to abide by witness disclosure deadlines—even when that failure arises from the plaintiff
Lindsey M. v. Rizona Department of Economic Security 127 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Lindsey M. v. Rizona Department of Economic Security 127 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶ 6 Our supreme court’s only pronouncement on what constitutes a final, substantively appealable order in a dependency proceeding is in In re Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-8545, -14 , -50 (1984).
Mara M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 38 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Mara M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 38 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002