Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL, 74 P.3d 952.

40 citing documents.

Stromberg v. Heirigs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 27 (App. 2003), “the supreme court has been given the exclusive power to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.” Id.
Gilbert v. Hon. foster/hon. hudson/beatty 424 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Gilbert v. Hon. foster/hon. hudson/beatty 424 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- 48, ¶ 21 (App. 2003), the court examined the "experimental" amendments to Rule 10.2 and found that the trial court's inherent authority does not include determining the propriety of reasons for a Rule 10.2 notice.
Gordon v. Estate of Brooks 397 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hon. padilla/bouhdida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hon. padilla/bouhdida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Perez v. O’Neil, ¶ 12 (App. 2003).
Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Perez v. O’Neil, , 647 ¶ 16
State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Perez v. O’Neil, , (addressing allegations of *307 routine challenges of certain Pinal County judges).
Carol Ann Potter Debra Joy Merryman v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Potter v. Vanderpool 240 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Carol Ann Potter Debra Joy Merryman v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Perez v. O’Neil, see also ChartOne, ¶¶ 8, 14, -07, 1108 (App. 2004) (noting questions of law, such as interpretation 1 It filed a similar response to Potter‟s petition, but this court struck the response because the state had faile
Potter v. Vanderpool 240 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Perez v. O’Neil, , see also ChartOne, ¶¶ 8, 14 , -07, 1108 (App.2004) (noting questions of law, such as interpretation of procedural rule, particularly appropriate for de novo review by special action).
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Reed v. Burke 199 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Reed v. Burke 199 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Perez v. O’Neil, (domain of supreme court to supplement or supercede its procedural rules).
Hornbeck v. Lusk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Hornbeck v. Lusk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Perez v. O’Neil, (local courts may not make orders that “frustrate the intent of a [supreme court] rule”).
Levy v. Alfaro 160 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Levy v. Alfaro 160 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Perez v. O’Neil, ¶ 16 , ¶8
Edward P. Bolding v. State of Arizona 148 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Edward P. Bolding v. State of Arizona 148 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Because the rule is ambiguous, we consider other factors, namely, the rule’s “‘context, subject matter, effects, consequences, 4 spirit, and purpose.’” Bergeron ex rel Perez v. O’Neil
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Perez v. O’Neil, ¶ 11 , , (appellate review of denial of notice of change of judge filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 42(f)(1) must be obtained by special action).
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Perez v. O’Neil, , (noting that “[i]t is not our domain to render any judgment on the merits” of policy arguments regarding wisdom of rule drafted by supreme court); Phoenix Newspapers, , (We do not “ ‘sit as a super-legislature to determi
Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Perez v. O’Neil, ¶¶ 11-12 , -58 (App.2003); , (appellate review of denial of notice of peremptory change of judge in civil case must be obtained by special action because “an appeal makes no sense”).
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Perez v. O’Neil, , (brackets in Bergeron): In determining the meaning of a rule promulgated by the supreme court, “we apply principles of statutory construction.”
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Perez v. O’Neil, (brackets in Bergeron): In determining the meaning of a rule promulgated by the supreme court, “we apply principles of statutory construction.”