Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite United States v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 697 P.2d 658.

141 citing documents.

San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 Because “there is not enough water to meet everyone’s demands, a determination of priorities and a quantification of the water rights accompanying those priorities must be made.” United States v. Superior Court/San Carlos Apache Tribe, , (hereinafter San Carlos II).
Division of Occupational Safety & Health of the Industrial Commission v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc. 972 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Division of Occupational Safety & Health of the Industrial Commission v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc. 972 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
• ¶ 32 This court has recognized that due process of law contemplates a “fair trial in a fair tribunal.” , (quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 , 75 S.Ct.
Van Emmerik v. Colosi 972 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Van Emmerik v. Colosi 972 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Walker v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
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
(harmonizing statutory rule with evidentiary rule of procedure); -46 , -62 (1986) (interpreting statutory provision as supplementing rather than conflicting with procedural rule); , (adopting supplementary statutory provision that did not unreasonably limit or hamper judicial system); Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry, , (construing statute as harmonious with rules).
RL Augustine Const. v. PEORIA SCHOOL DIST. 904 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
RL Augustine Const. v. PEORIA SCHOOL DIST. 904 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
United States v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. *396 265, 280, see also Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 , 102 S.Ct.
R.L. Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11 904 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
R.L. Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11 904 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
United States v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. *396 265, 280 , see also Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 , 102 S.Ct.
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ridenour v. Schwartz 875 P.2d 1306 Ariz. 1994
Ridenour v. Schwartz 875 P.2d 1306 Ariz. 1994
See, e.g., Dann, 157 Ariz. at 398 , 758 P.2d at 1300 (courts, as an independent branch of government, have right to appoint “necessary personnel” to carry out constitutional and statutory obligations); , (legislature cannot take actions that “unreasonably limit or hamper” the judicial system in performing its duties).
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & Source 857 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1993
In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & Source 857 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1993
3201 , 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983); -71 , -64 (1985), -33 , -45 (1992).
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Shepherd v. Platt 865 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Shepherd v. Platt 865 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
The extent of the state’s , : Article 20, ¶ 4, may be given full meaning by construing it, first, as a disclaimer of all rights to “Indian lands considered as property,” Porter v. Hall, 34 Ariz. [308] at 321, 271 P. [411] at 415 [(1928)], and second, as an acknowledgement that federal law and policy are paramount on Indian r
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Berenter v. Gallinger 839 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Berenter v. Gallinger 839 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Due process of law contemplates a “fair trial in a fair tribunal.” , (quoting In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 , 75 S.Ct.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 837 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 837 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1992
-76 , -69 (1985) (“[C]onstitutional provisions may [not] be interpreted as if they were simple contracts.
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
In Re the Rights Ex Rel. Gila River 830 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1992
In Re the Rights Ex Rel. Gila River 830 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1992
3201, 3209-10 , 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983) (subsection entitled “The Arizona Cases”); -71 , -64 (1985) (subsection entitled “The Controversy”).
Maricopa County v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
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
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc. 807 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc. 807 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Due process of law contemplates a "fair trial in a fair tribunal.” , (quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 , 75 S.Ct.
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Hovey v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hovey v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Ct., In and For Maricopa Cty.
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 796 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1990
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 796 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1990
State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989