Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Collins v. Seidel, 691 P.2d 678.

103 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Collins v. Seidel , , 591, , 682 (1984).
Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(explaining that the court will “recognize ‘statutory arrangements which seem reasonable and workable’ and which supplement the rules we have promulgated”) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Lindner 252 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Lindner 252 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Collins v. Seidel (Deason), -91 , -82 (1984).
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(quoting Alexander v. Delgado, 84 N.M.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(statutory rule establishing procedure for evidentiary admission of results of blood alcohol tests does not violate Article 6, Section 5).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
-91 , -82 (1984) (Rules of Evidence promulgated pursuant to court’s power under Const. art. 6, § 5.); ¶ 26 , (Rules of evidence are generally regarded as procedural.).
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. County of Pima 86 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2004
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. County of Pima 86 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2004
591, we recognized that the legislature may enact procedural rules that supplement, but do not contradict, the rules the court has promulgated.
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 60 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 60 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(statutory rule establishing procedure for evidentiary admission of results of blood alcohol tests not unconstitutional).
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
In re Jonah T. 994 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In re Jonah T. 994 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Superior Court 991 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Superior Court 991 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the legislature may enact procedural rules so long as they merely supplement, but do not contradict, existing court-made rules.
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); United States v. Superior Court, 144
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904 884 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904 884 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994