Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Petty, 238 P.3d 637.

66 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz 340 P.3d 1069 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz 340 P.3d 1069 Ariz. 2014
Preclusion is designed to “require a defendant to raise all known claims for relief in a single petition,” ¶ 11, (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and thereby “prevent endless or nearly endless reviews of the same case in the same trial court,” Stewart, 202 Ariz. at 450 ¶ 11, 46 P.3d at 1071.
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rule 702, Ariz. R. Evid., “does not preclude an expert witness from testifying generally concerning matters within [her] expertise without thereafter applying those methods to the facts of the case.” ¶9 “‘In interpreting rules, we apply the same principles we use in interpreting statutes.’”
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.” “„In interpreting rules, we apply the same principles we use in interpreting statutes.‟” 555 (App. 2011)
Star Publishing Co. v. State of Arizona, Timothy Lynn Kreus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Star Publishing Co. v. State of Arizona, Timothy Lynn Kreus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Robert Taylor Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Robert Taylor Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
¶6 “In interpreting rules, we apply the same principles we use in interpreting statutes.”
State of Arizona v. Richard Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Richard Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
But “the interpretation of rules is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Osterkamp requested that the respondent reinstate the post- conviction proceeding in light of this court‟s recent decision in State v. Petty, 225 Ariz. 369
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010