Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gomez v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PINAL CTY., 717 P.2d 902.

38 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Michael Martin Creel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Michael Martin Creel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
The state argues the court abused its discretion in disqualifying PCAO based solely on the appearance of impropriety—
State of Arizona v. Victor A. Arias Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Victor A. Arias Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
As such, Arias argues, the prosecutor’s and Ariz. R. Sup.
Verdell Carmen Hamlet v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Verdell Carmen Hamlet v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
He argues the GCAO must be disqualified based primarily on the appearance of impropriety—
Davey v. Hon sipe/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Davey v. Hon sipe/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State Ex Rel Mitchell v. Hon. palmer/durand 546 P.3d 101 Ariz. 2024
State Ex Rel Mitchell v. Hon. palmer/durand 546 P.3d 101 Ariz. 2024
Two years later, this Court reiterated these factors—now commonly known as the Gomez factors—as “matters a court must consider when ruling upon ∗ Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel and Justice William G. Montgomery have recused themselves from this matter.
State of Arizona v. Hon. chambers/henderson 533 P.3d 195 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. chambers/henderson 533 P.3d 195 Ariz. 2023
The trial court denied the motion after considering the four-factor inquiry, : (1) whether the motion is being made for the purposes of harassing the defendant; (2) whether the party bringing 1 A “probate” is a prospective gang member.
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/darren Goldin 487 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/darren Goldin 487 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2021
It overturned the superior court’s and remanded for consideration of those factors.
Burch v. Hon. myers/hon. bassett/lund 351 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Burch v. Hon. myers/hon. bassett/lund 351 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at 160; -90 (App. 1987).
Simms v. Rayes 316 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Simms v. Rayes 316 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Because disqualification interferes with a party’s attorney-client relationship, disqualification motions are subject to “tactical abuse,” id., and are “view[ed] with suspicion,” Gomez v. Superior Court (Dawson)
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Gomez v. Supe *309 rior Court
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 908 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 908 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
dealing with direct, not vicarious, disqualification, the court acknowledged that the recently adopted Rules of Professional Conduct had dropped the “appearance of impropriety” prohibition found in the old Code of Professional Responsibility.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, , , see also Rules 1 and 3, Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.
State v. Sustaita 902 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sustaita 902 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-26 , -05 (1986); -60 , -01 (App.1990).
Turbin v. Superior Court 797 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Turbin v. Superior Court 797 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
our supreme court continued to rely on the “appearance of impropriety” in evaluating attorney conduct, while recognizing some weakening of this concept by the new Rules of Professional Conduct.
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
see also Cottonwood Estates, Inc. v. Paradise Builders, Inc.
Foulke v. Knuck 784 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Foulke v. Knuck 784 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
for the proposition that *523 under the new ethical rules disqualification by court order requires some actual detriment and is not to be ordered ipso facto.
Sellers v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 742 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sellers v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 742 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
The comment to ER 1.7 suggests skepticism toward an opponent’s motion to disqualify, lest it “be misused as a technique of harassment.” See also Alexander, 141 Ariz. at 161 , 685 P.2d at 1313