Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Quigley v. City Court of the City of Tucson, 643 P.2d 738.
- 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.”
- State v. Kangas 704 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
State v. Kangas
704 P.2d 285
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
(holding that appropriate remedy for state to review orders of dismissal with prejudice was by special action where statutory provision then in effect did not give the state a right of appeal from such orders).
- Robertson v. SUPERIOR CT. STATE OF ARIZ. 666 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Robertson v. SUPERIOR CT. STATE OF ARIZ. 666 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc. 658 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc. 658 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- Campa v. Fleming 656 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
-
Campa v. Fleming
656 P.2d 619
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Although the case involved a different substantive issue, we find the reasoning in our recent opinion in Quigley v. City Court, *331 , (concerning superior court review of the action of a city magistrate) to be dispositive of this appeal.