DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Owens, 447 P.2d 233.

26 citing documents.

  • Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    P. 16(a) (1987), ¶ 15 (App. 2012); (“[T]he determination of whether a witness is beyond the jurisdiction of the court so that his personal attendance cannot be had is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.”); (“Subpoenas to compel the attendance of a witness may run to the bou
  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
    State v. Pereda, supra; , State v. Greer, 27 Ariz.App.
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Marshall 589 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Marshall 589 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Penunuri v. Superior Court 565 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Penunuri v. Superior Court 565 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    Our Supreme Court in Goodman was of the opinion that “only the most extraordinary circumstances will justify the trial court in refusing to grant a motion by a plaintiff to dismiss without prejudice.” , .
  • State v. Greer 552 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Greer 552 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    In State v. Pereda, supra, our Supreme Court indicated that it regarded the factual evidence of a good faith attempt and failure to subpoena a , as “the outer limit of a court’s discretionary judgment.” 111 Ariz. at 345-46 , 529 P.2d at 696 .
  • State v. Pereda 529 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Pereda 529 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Briley 505 P.2d 245 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Briley 505 P.2d 245 Ariz. 1973
    we recognized the problems' of securing the presence of an “itinerant laborer” and held that under such circumstances, where there was evidence to show the witness had left' the state, there was no requirement that subpoenas be issued and sent to the sheriffs of other states.
  • State v. Alexander 503 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Alexander 503 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1972
    Sam v. State, su pra.” , a subpoena had been issued for an itinerant laborer, but the witness could not be located.
  • State v. Colson 499 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Colson 499 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Carter 493 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Carter 493 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    Owens v. Eyman, 434 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1970), approving
  • State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
    oboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” We set forth the test as to whether a , , 472 “The test of whether ór not one is an accomplice is whether he could be informed against for the same crime of which the defendant is accused.” , , cert.
  • State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970