Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jacobson, 524 P.2d 962.

29 citing documents.

McRae v. Hon. sanders/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McRae v. Hon. sanders/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
524 P.2d *146 962 (1974).
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 777 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 777 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Because we conclude that special action is the proper procedure to seek review of the trial court’s order, see , and because we conclude that the trial court improperly granted the real parties’ motion, we accept jurisdiction and grant the requested relief.
Korzep v. Superior Court 746 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Escobar v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 746 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Escobar v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 746 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
P.2d 962 (1974), to the effect that the sufficiency of the evidence may not be attacked in a motion for a new determination of probable cause.
Korzep v. Superior Court 746 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
The dissent has characterized the misleading nature of the hearsay testimony as a
Nelson v. Roylston 669 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Distinguished Nelson v. Roylston 669 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
where we found that the fact situation was distinguishable from that in Basurto .
Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY. 668 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1983
Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY. 668 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Superior Court 577 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Superior Court 577 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Superior Court 580 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Superior Court 580 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Guerrero 580 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Guerrero 580 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Superior Court 590 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Superior Court 590 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
where the defendant contended that he was entitled to a new finding of probable cause because the indictment was based on allegedly false statements.
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 549 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 549 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
This is not a situation, , where a duly constituted grand jury returned an indictment valid on its face and a challenge was made to the kind of evidence considered by the grand jury in making its decision.