Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite O'BRIEN v. Escher, 65 P.3d 107.

34 citing documents.

In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO V.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO V.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 313 n.12 (1994) (clarifying that, when interpreting a statute, an appellate opinion is a declaration of what the law “had always meant”); ¶ 21 (App. 2003).
Secure Ventures v. Hon. gerlach/johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Secure Ventures v. Hon. gerlach/johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Special action jurisdiction is particularly appropriate in cases “rais[ing] questions of law that are of statewide importance, apparently of first impression, and likely to recur.” O’ ¶ 3 (App. 2003).
State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
See O’ Yellowmexican, 142 Ariz. at 208, 688 P.2d at 1100 (statutory amendment “simply put [defendant] on notice that if he committed a third DWI offense within thirty-six months, his punishment for the third offense would be enhanced because of his prior convictions”).
Brewer v. Rees 265 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Brewer v. Rees 265 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
251 (App. 2006) (given number of cases remanded for resentencing in light 4 of Supreme Court decision and likelihood issues would recur, interpretation and application of sentencing statutes constituted matter of statewide importance to litigants and judiciary and acceptance of special action jurisdiction appropriate); see also O’ (finding cases presenting purely legal issues of first impression and statewide importance and likely to recur particularly appropriate for special action review).
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
521 n. 5, ¶ 15, , 719 n. 5 (App.2008) (citing O’ ¶ 6 , ); , (recounting the history of Proposition 200).
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Vaughn 176 P.3d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Vaughn 176 P.3d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
nd the likelihood that the issues raised here or substantially similar issues will arise again, the meaning of these statutes and the scope of a resentencing hearing under them are “question[s] of statewide importance to the judiciary and the litigants who come before it in [criminal] matters.” see also O’ (cases presenting purely legal issues of first impression and statewide importance and that could readily recur in other cases are particularly appropriate for special action review).
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
his special action likely will arise in numerous pending cases, making the applicability of § 13-205 “a question of statewide importance to the judiciary and the litigants who come before it in [criminal] matters.” see also Brush Wellman, O’ (cases presenting purely legal issues that are of first impression and statewide importance and that could readily recur in other cases are particularly appropriate for special action review).
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Comm’n, , (workers’ compensation benefits); San Carlos, , Murray, , O’ , (amendment to statute proscribing jail term after act committed); Mejia v. Indus.
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Gallagher 69 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Gallagher 69 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In addition, the special action raises “questions of law that are of statewide importance, apparently of first impression, and likely to recur.” O’