Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Files v. Bernal, 22 P.3d 57.

100 citing documents.

Foley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Foley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2001)).
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[I]f the superior court accepts jurisdiction and rules on the merits, as the court did here, we determine whether it abused its discretion in granting or denying special action relief.” ¶ 2
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Generally, a court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision or the court commits an error of law in reaching the decision.” ¶ 3, ( ¶ 2, ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 6 , -66, ¶ 2 , -59 (App.2001).
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(observing “court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision”).
State v. Burns 298 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Burns 298 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
The court abuses its discretion if it “commits an error of law in reaching the decision.” Files v. *565 Bernal, ¶ 2
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
but we review questions of law, such as the interpretation of a statute, de novo
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
15 evidence to support the decision.”); (“Generally, a court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision .
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 16 After the superior court has accepted jurisdiction and determined the merits of a special action petition, “we review whether the court abused its discretion by its grant or denial of relief.” ¶ 5 , ( ¶ 2 , ).
State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
When a word is not defined in any statute, we generally “refer to a widely used dictionary to determine its meaning.” ¶ 5
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
When a word is not defined in the ordinance or in any statute, we generally “refer to a widely used dictionary to determine its meaning.”
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See, e.g., Files v. Bernal (State), , 65 ¶ 2, (citing Hamilton v. Mesa Mun.
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 2 , (“Because the superior court’s decision in this case involved the interpretation of an ordinance, we review that interpretation de novo.”).
State v. Cowles 82 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Cowles 82 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“Generally, a court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision or the court commits an error of law in reaching the decision.” ¶ 2
Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors 70 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors 70 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
64, ¶2, (“ [A] court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision or the court commits an error of law in reaching the decision.
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
524 , offering or conspiring to commit an act of prostitution, , bribery, see A.R.S.