Cited by

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

108 citing documents.

Sherri C. v. Dcs, H.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sherri C. v. Dcs, H.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., -83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Generally, an abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is “manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” ATKINSON v. MCINDOO Decision of the Court 500 (App. 1990) ( and Torres v. N. Am.
Berkley v. Koenig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Berkley v. Koenig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
An abuse of discretion is discretion “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“An ‘abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” ( ).
Angel O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Angel O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Esther Caplan Trust 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bistrow v. Sova 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bistrow v. Sova 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
We cannot substitute our discretion for that of the trial judge.” (citation omitted)); , (“A difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with ‘abuse of discretion.’ ”).
In Re Esther Caplan Trust 265 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(citation omitted)); , ("A difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with `abuse of discretion.'").
Slaughter v. Maricopa County 258 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Slaughter v. Maricopa County 258 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(defining abuse of discretion as discretion “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons”).
Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 178 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 178 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
at 83, ¶ 19, 107 P.3d at 929 ( , ).
Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 158 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Adrian E. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 158 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Willie G. & Bonnie H. v. Ades, Nycole G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Willie G. & Bonnie H. v. Ades, Nycole G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(abuse of discretion “is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons”).
Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 119 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 119 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(abuse of discretion “is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons”).
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Generally, an abuse of discretion “is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Generally, an abuse of discretion “is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Even if we would have acted differently under the same circumstances, we nevertheless will affirm the trial court’s decision if it did not “exeeed[ ] the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act.” , , (“A difference in judicial opinion is not synonymous with ‘abuse of discretion.’ ”).
Miller v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Miller v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
An abuse of discretion is “discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” , ( , ).
State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Sandoval 857 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Sandoval 857 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Gilbert 837 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Garcia 823 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Granados 837 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Followed State v. Garcia 823 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Granados 837 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Gilbert 837 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Marquess 811 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Marquess 811 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
State v. McPherson 763 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. McPherson 763 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
The decision of the trial court will not be reversed unless we find an abuse of that discretion, that is, “discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”