Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 706 P.2d 756.

28 citing documents.

Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 9 (App. 2000); ("If two inconsistent factual conclusions could be supported by the record, then there is substantial evidence to support [a] .
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13-2301(D)(4)(b), notwithstanding the existence of conflicting evidence,7 see Smith v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., (holding a decision must be 7 Melissa argues in her reply brief that once she provided an alternate explanation for the Currency, the burden shifted back to the State “to produce additional evidence tipping the scales back in its favor.” The cases she cites do not support this proposition, and
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Smith v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp.
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
In the DUI context, “probable cause does not require law enforcement ‘to show that the operator was in fact under the influence’; ‘[o]nly the probability and not a prima facie showing of intoxication is the standard for probable cause.’” quoting Smith v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., (alteration in Aleman).
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
see also Smith v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp.
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
“Probable cause is something less than the proof needed to convict and something more than suspicions.” Howard, 163 Ariz. at 50, 785 P.2d at 1238; cf. Smith v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., (probable cause does not require law enforcement “to show that the operator was in 8 fact under the influence”; “[o]nly the probability and not a prima facie showing of intoxication is the standard for probable cause”).
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
But assuming the requisite showing of "reasonable grounds” under § 28-1321(K)(l) is equivalent to a probable cause standard, , Smith v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., , MVD made such a showing here.
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , see also Smith v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., , (administrative decision on whether state satisfied burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence upheld unless no substantial evidence supports decision).
Ricard v. Arizona Department of Transportation 931 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ricard v. Arizona Department of Transportation 931 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pearson v. MOTOR VEH., DEPT. OF TRANSP. 889 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pearson v. MOTOR VEH., DEPT. OF TRANSP. 889 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Croft v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 755 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Croft v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 755 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Geer v. Ordway 754 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Geer v. Ordway 754 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987
Noland v. State, Dept. of Transp. 728 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Noland v. State, Dept. of Transp. 728 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
the limits of administrative review by the superior court were set forth.