Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mitchell v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR PIMA CTY., 690 P.2d 51.

34 citing documents.

GOLDWATER v. PHOENIX Ariz. 2026
¶3 The issue before us is whether, in urging the “best interests of the state” exception to disclosure of public records, a public entity must establish that it is probable (more likely than not) that disclosure would cause “specific, material harm.”
Goldwater v. City of Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Goldwater v. City of Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
confidentiality or would be detrimental to the best interests of the state.” A party seeking to block disclosure must, under Carlson, demonstrate “the probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure.” ¶ 12 (App. 2022) (citations omitted)
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
It must demonstrate “the probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure.” ().
Jarron Smith v. Town of Marana 524 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Jarron Smith v. Town of Marana 524 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
A party seeking to block disclosure must, under Carlson, demonstrate “the probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure.” (voiding general rule keeping convicted offenders’ presentence reports confidential).
Conroy v. hutchinson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Conroy v. hutchinson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting that reviewing courts “have asked trial courts to make in camera inspections of the relevant documents and balance the rights of the parties”); cf. Griffis, 215 Ariz. at 3 (holding that when a “government entity withholds documents generated or maintained on a government-owned computer system on th
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(holding that the burden of showing that a harm will result from disclosure “is on the party that seeks non-disclosure rather than on the party that seeks access”); Elec.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“The burden of showing the probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure, thus justifying an exception to the usual rule of full disclosure, is on the party that seeks nondisclosure rather than on the party that seeks access.”
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
See, e.g., Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, 175 Ariz. at 15, 852 P.2d at 1199; Carlson, 141 Ariz. at 491, 687 P.2d at 1246; Mathews, 75 Ariz. at 80-81, 251 P.2d at 896-97; -41 ¶ 14, -06 (App. 1998); Church of Scientology, 122 Ariz. at 339, 594 P.2d at 1035.
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(superior court procedural order void because it produced a result contrary to the rules promulgated by the supreme court).
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
The [government] has the burden of overcoming “the legal presumption favoring disclosure.” Cox Arizona Publications, , ( , ).
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 955 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1998
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 955 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1998
The State has the burden of overcoming “the legal presumption favoring disclosure.” Cox Arizona Publications, , ( , ).
Star Publishing Co. v. Pima County Attorney's Office 891 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Star Publishing Co. v. Pima County Attorney's Office 891 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Cox Arizona Publications
Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins 852 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1993
Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins 852 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1993
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenlee County Justice Court 756 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Greenlee County Justice Court 756 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. City Court of City of Tucson 722 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1986
State v. City Court of City of Tucson 722 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1986
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
n.1 , , 52 n.1 (1984), in a similar context regarding the function of these reports: [A] presentence report is required in cases where the court has discretion over the penalty and incarceration for one year or more is a possible disposition.