DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Amos v. Bowen, 693 P.2d 979.

52 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Bhajanpal Chopra 387 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Bhajanpal Chopra 387 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    (special action jurisdiction may be appropriate if trial court has committed plain and obvious error).
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ependent sample, see Ramos, 155 Ariz. at 156, 745 P.2d at 604, Kuzmanov does not argue that law enforcement did so here, see, -11, -26 (1982) (affirming finding of unreasonable interference with defendant’s attempt to gather exculpatory evidence where police did not honor defendant’s request to telephone his attorney); 4 STATE v. KUZMANOV Decision of the Court (same where officer agreed to transport the defendant to the hospital but delayed the trip by two hours while processing the crime scene)
  • Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    789-90 (1983) (“[Special action] jurisdiction is frequently accepted when under no rule of law can a trial court’s actions be justified.”); ¶ 6 , (“Special action relief is appropriate if the respondent judge has abused her discretion by committing an error of law or proceeding in excess of her legal authority.”); , (“Special action jurisdiction may be assumed to correct a plain and obvious error committed by the trial court.”).
  • State v. Hon. reinstein/hendrix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hon. reinstein/hendrix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See, -28, -83 (App. 1984) (officer volunteered to transport defendant to hospital but delayed trip by two hours); McNutt v. Superior Court (Strick), (police refused to honor request to telephone attorney).
  • State v. Olcan 61 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Olcan 61 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    at 337 n. 4, 813 P.2d at 318 n. 4 (-28 , -83 (App.1984)).
  • Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    Court, , (jail officials refused to honor request to telephone attorney); , (officer voluntarily undertook transport to hospital but then delayed trip by two hours); Smith v. *390 Ganske, , (jail officials told defendant’s friend prepared to make bail that defendant was not at the jail).
  • State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    See, e.g., McNutt (police inexplicably denied defendant’s request to telephone his attorney and ignored his request for independent blood test, instead holding him for two-and-one-half hours while any alcohol dissipated from his body); , (dismissal required when police, albeit for good reason and without bad motive, "delayed a period of two or more hours in the process of proceeding to obtain an independent blood test”); Cada, 114 Ariz. at 514 , 562 P.2d at 394 (state "may not unreasonably inter
  • Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization 987 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization 987 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    ¶ 20 Among the numerous Arizona DUI cases in which a due process violation has been found that relates to breath testing, only two have held that dismissal of the (A)(1) charge was required in addition to dismissal of the (A)(2) charge
  • State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    § 28-692 requires a stay or dismissal of the charge as a remedy.”
  • Emmons v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Emmons v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    We exercise our discretion and accept jurisdiction because: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the jurors’ consideration of Exhibit 41 constituted a basis upon which to set aside the settlement agreement; , State ex rel.
  • HARRIS TRUST BANK OF AZ v. Superior Court 933 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • HARRIS TRUST BANK OF AZ v. Superior Court 933 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    We also consider special action jurisdiction uniquely proper when “under no rule of law can a trial court’s actions be justified.” King, 138 Ariz. at 149-50 , 673 P.2d at 789-90 ; , (special action jurisdiction may be assumed to correct plain and obvious error by trial court).
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 909 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 909 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Kemp 813 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Kemp 813 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1991
  • Quinton v. Superior Court 815 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Quinton v. Superior Court 815 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Rose v. Arizona Department of Corrections 804 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Rose v. Arizona Department of Corrections 804 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    -55 , -03 (App.1987); -28 , -83 (App.1984).
  • Irvin Investors, Inc. v. Superior Court 800 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Irvin Investors, Inc. v. Superior Court 800 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    The decision to accept jurisdiction is discretionary and may be invoked to correct a plain and obvious error of the trial court, , or when the trial court’s order "is without precedent or support in the law and cannot be justified.” , -50
  • State v. Ramos 745 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Distinguished State v. Ramos 745 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    and McNutt v. Superior Court.
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
    For example, those local jurisdictions which do employ the implied consent law usually inform suspects of their right to independent testing anyway, see, , without any apparent difficulty.
  • McCarthy v. Arnold 722 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • McCarthy v. Arnold 722 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    McNutt, 133 Ariz. at 10 , 648 P.2d at 125