Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Blazak, 462 P.2d 84.

78 citing documents.

Marianne N. v. Department of Child Safety 381 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marianne N. v. Department of Child Safety 381 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
As applicable here, our supreme court is granted the exclusive “[p]ower to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.” Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5
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
Ariz. Podiatry Ass’n v. Dir.
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
Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 5(5); , (supreme court has exclusive power to promulgate procedural rules); , (same).
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(finding unconstitutional statutory amendments changing time limits for post-conviction proceedings because they invaded supreme court’s rule-making authority); , (rule-making power is vested exclusively in supreme court).
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
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-18 , -86 (1969); see also Encinas, 189 Ariz. at 159 , 939 P.2d at 437 (adopting the “reasonable and workable” standard).
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Like all other court rules, ARPJC 12,13, and 14 were promulgated under the supreme court’s exclusive power to “make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.” See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(5)
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
This rule-making power is vested exclusively in the supreme court, , and it includes jurisdiction over all changes to rules of judicial procedure in state courts.
State v. Jackson 908 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Jackson 908 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
hastily without the necessary study and deliberation to make them effective, might produce a less than satisfactory result.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Berger 828 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Berger 828 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
As our supreme court has noted: “[Statutory rules shall remain in effect until modified or suspended by the rules promulgated by the supreme court.” , quoting Arizona Podiatry Assoc.
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. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(5).
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
Hare v. SUPER. COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 652 P.2d 1387 Ariz. 1982
Hare v. SUPER. COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 652 P.2d 1387 Ariz. 1982
State v. Garza 623 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Garza 623 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
Art. 6, § 5(5); , Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Insurance
Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System Commission 619 P.2d 1036 Ariz. 1980
Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System Commission 619 P.2d 1036 Ariz. 1980
Matter of Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-834, 26 Ariz.App.
Anderson v. Pickrell 566 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1977
Anderson v. Pickrell 566 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1977
State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Matter of App. in Maricopa Cty., Juv. Act. 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Matter of App. in Maricopa Cty., Juv. Act. 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arizona Podiatry Assn., supra
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arizona Podiatry Assn., supra