Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stoudamire v. State of Arizona, 141 P.3d 776.

38 citing documents.

Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State v. Artishon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Artishon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-99, ¶¶ 6-13 (App. 2006) (explaining 1 Judge Paul J. McMurdie replaces the Honorable Kenton D. Jones, who was originally assigned to this panel.
State v. Piggee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Piggee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 6 (App. 2006) (concluding that a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial for misdemeanor marijuana and drug paraphernalia possession offenses).
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 42 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 3 (App. 2006)).
Foor v. Smith 416 P.3d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Foor v. Smith 416 P.3d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stoudamire v. Simon , , 297, ¶ 3, , 777 (App. 2006).
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State ex rel. Darwin v. Arnett 330 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Darwin v. Arnett 330 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mack v. Hon. dellas/phoenix 326 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mack v. Hon. dellas/phoenix 326 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 3, (citation omitted).
Bosworth v. Hon. anagnost/az 323 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bosworth v. Hon. anagnost/az 323 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
is a question of law and is reviewed de novo.” ¶ 3, (citation omitted).
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Goodyear 221 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Goodyear 221 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
BUCCELLATO v. Morgan 203 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
BUCCELLATO v. Morgan 203 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See, ¶ 12 , (holding no jury trial was required for a misdemeanor drug offense even though conviction could cause a later denial of an application for a professional license).
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6 , (“Questions of statutory interpretation are issues of law subject to de novo review.”); ¶3 , (“[w]hether a defendant is entitled to a jury trial ...
Dennis Brodsky v. State of Arizona 189 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Dennis Brodsky v. State of Arizona 189 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Willis 178 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Willis 178 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hornbeck v. Lusk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Hornbeck v. Lusk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Fushek v. State 183 P.3d 536 Ariz. 2008
Fushek v. State 183 P.3d 536 Ariz. 2008
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 3 , (citing *182 Urs v. Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, ¶ 2 , ).
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Fushek v. State 159 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Fushek v. State 159 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶6 , (rejecting jury eligibility argument because possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia were not recognized as crimes at the time of statehood).