Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Large v. Superior Court, 714 P.2d 399.

31 citing documents.

In Re Pinal County Mental Health Case Mh202400075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
In Re Pinal County Mental Health Case Mh202400075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(right to refuse medical treatment protected by both state and federal constitutions); -36 (1986) (federal constitution provides “benchmark of minimum constitutional protection”).
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
No. MH 2001-001139, cf. Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 134 (1992) (Forced medication “represents a substantial interference with [a] person’s liberty.” (quoting Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) (recognizing potentially severe, debilitating, and even fatal side effects of antipsychotic medication))); (“To the extent that medication is administered forcibly for the purpose of controlling behavior, it is a bodily restraint insubstantially different from the shackles of old.”).5 ¶10
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Schugg v. Az Brd of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Schugg v. Az Brd of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“due process analysis must include consideration of the competing state interest that encroaches on the individual liberty or property right”).
McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ct., , (using rational basis test under due process provision of Arizona Constitution); , (applying rational basis analysis in deciding whether statute violated Arizona’s constitutional guarantee of privacy).
Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(special action jurisdiction is appropriate over matters of constitutional significance).
Schillerstrom v. State 885 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Schillerstrom v. State 885 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Rose v. Arizona Department of Corrections 804 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rose v. Arizona Department of Corrections 804 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
475, 476 , (“Wide discretion is vested in correctional authorities in matters of internal prison administration, and reasonable action within the scope of this discretion does not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights.”); , (institutional security, internal order and discipline are essential goals of the ADOC).
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
1401 , 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977)
Kelley v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 762 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Kelley v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 762 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Morrissey, supra; -37 , -07 (1986).
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 746 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Large v. Superior Court, in and for Maricopa County, -236 , -406 (1986).
Jarvis v. Levine 403 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gockley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 725 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1986
Gockley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 725 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1986
(“Rule _”); , 231 n. 1, , 401 n. 1 (1986).