Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Quigley v. City Court of the City of Tucson, 643 P.2d 738.

108 citing documents.

Rhodes-Hamby v. Askew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
The superior court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
The superior court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
In Re Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
The superior court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
Murrieta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murrieta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
A court abuses its discretion where its judgment is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
Buonincontri v. Orhub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Buonincontri v. Orhub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sprinkle v. Neave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sprinkle v. Neave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A court abuses its discretion when its use of that discretion is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
Firestone v. Safire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Firestone v. Safire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
An abuse of discretion “is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
Atwood v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Atwood v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Quigley v. City Ct. of City 3
Michael D. v. Dcs, R.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Michael D. v. Dcs, R.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
Baron v. Honorhealth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Baron v. Honorhealth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“An ‘abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
Georgia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Georgia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision is “manifestly unreasonable,” based “on untenable grounds” or “for untenable reasons.”
Sandra R,, Sergio C. v. Dcs 436 P.3d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sandra R,, Sergio C. v. Dcs 436 P.3d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Pritchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Pritchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Adept Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Adept Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (App. 2009); (a difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with an abuse of discretion).
State v. Fell 393 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Fell 393 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Arora v. Arora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arora v. Arora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
urt also found that four years of maintenance “will allow Wife the time that she needs to secure additional employment and arrange for any training she needs to secure appropriate employment.” ¶12 Although reasonable minds might differ regarding the amount and duration of the award, “[a] difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with ‘abuse of discretion.’” (appellate court will affirm spousal maintenance award if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies it).
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶17 Jackson White also argues the case cannot be dismissed with prejudice unless the interests of justice so require, (interpreting Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16.5(d) concerning dismissal of criminal prosecutions).
State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Merit Bd., ¶ 15 (App. 2014) (noting that when the superior court conducts appellate review, it “does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in it”); (“A difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with ‘abuse of discretion.’”).
Calderon v. Mennenga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calderon v. Mennenga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Krznarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Krznarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
State of Arizona v. International Fidelity Insurance Co. and Regulator Bail Bonds 355 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. International Fidelity Insurance Co. and Regulator Bail Bonds 355 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(difference in judicial opinion not synonymous with abuse of discretion).
Hiller v. Hualapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hiller v. Hualapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 14, (“An ‘abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”).