Cited by

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

78 citing documents.

State v. Rose 535 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Rose 535 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Because of the doubt cast upon these statues, § 13-1621 and § 13 — 1621.-01 A.R.S., by this decision and prior decision of this court, , , State ex rel.
State v. Cooper 529 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1974
State v. Cooper 529 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1974
State v. Robinson 526 P.2d 396 Ariz. 1974
State v. Robinson 526 P.2d 396 Ariz. 1974
State v. Begay 516 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1973
State v. Begay 516 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1973
State v. Blazak 516 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1973
State v. Blazak 516 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1973
State v. Clemons 515 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1973
State v. Clemons 515 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1973
Because of the doubt cast upon these statutes, § 13-1621 and § 13-1621.01 A.R.S., by this decision and prior decisions of this court, , , State ex rel.
State v. Clemons 509 P.2d 715 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Clemons 509 P.2d 715 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
recognizes the validity of the procedural rules contained in these two sections pending the Arizona Supreme Court’s adoption of superseding rules.
State v. Miller 506 P.2d 641 Ariz. 1973
State v. Miller 506 P.2d 641 Ariz. 1973
State v. Reynolds 497 P.2d 812 Ariz. 1972
State v. Reynolds 497 P.2d 812 Ariz. 1972
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Catalina Savings & Loan Ass'n 493 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Catalina Savings & Loan Ass'n 493 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
nst the tax commission under this title a copy of the complaint and the summons shall be served upon the tax commission or the chairman of the commission.” The tax commission urges that the rule requiring service on the attorney general must prevail since Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5 grants exclusive power to make rules relative to all procedural matters to the Arizona Supreme Court, , and that the legislature had no power to reserve unto it a determination of the manner in which service is to be ac
State Ex Rel. Purcell v. Superior Court 485 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State Ex Rel. Purcell v. Superior Court 485 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
* * *” p. 1136 Recently this Court, , , pointed out that the legislature did not intend to change the burden of proof as it existed at the time § 13-1621.01 A.R.3., as amended, was enacted.
State v. Shaw 471 P.2d 715 Ariz. 1970
State v. Shaw 471 P.2d 715 Ariz. 1970
As admitted in defendant’s reply brief, , , in which we held that, following the adoption of this constitutional provision in 1960, the power *108 to make procedural rules is now vested exclusively in this Court.
Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. v. Kelly 463 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. v. Kelly 463 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
the defendant urged that the statute was an unconstitutional invasion of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court.