Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Potter v. Vanderpool, 240 P.3d 1257.

57 citing documents.

State v. Walls-Bey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 7 (App. 2010) (special action is appropriate vehicle to challenge interlocutory ruling).
E v. v. Hon. Abrams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
E v. v. Hon. Abrams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
¶¶ 6-7 (App. 2010) (exercising special action jurisdiction to address legal issues in competency proceedings).
MacLean v. Newgioco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
MacLean v. Newgioco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶12 We review the interpretation of court rules de novo, ¶ 10 (2013), and “according to the principles of statutory construction,” ¶ 8 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2006)).
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn 394 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn 394 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[W]e interpret court rules according to the principles of statutory construction.” ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 13, (stating court may not “insert[] words into the rule that do not exist.”) ( ¶ 24, ); Bigelsen v. Ariz. State Bd.
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Pinal, ¶ 6, and Luis A. v. Bayham-Lesselyong ex rel.
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(when judge “err[s] as a matter of law” he abuses discretion); see also Ariz. R. P. Spec.
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Pinal, ¶ 6, ( ¶ 2, ), and “[a] primary consideration is whether the petitioner has an equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal.” Am.
Frimmel v. Hon. sanders/state 338 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Frimmel v. Hon. sanders/state 338 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Pinal, ¶ 6, and will generally do so only in cases that raise issues of statewide importance, issues of first impression, pure legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nunez v. Hon. porter/gordon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nunez v. Hon. porter/gordon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Grant 307 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Grant 307 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶4 We have discretion to accept special action jurisdiction, ¶ 6 , and will accept jurisdiction if a petitioner does not have an “equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal,” Ariz. R.P.
Pima County Human Rights Committee v. Arizona Department of Health Services 303 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Pima County Human Rights Committee v. Arizona Department of Health Services 303 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(error of law constitutes abuse of discretion).
Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn 290 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn 290 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶6 “Whether to accept special action jurisdiction is for this court to decide in the exercise of our discretion.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn 292 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn 292 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
JURISDICTION ¶ 4 Although we have to decide whether to exercise discretion and accept special action jurisdiction, ¶ 6 , we will accept jurisdiction if a petitioner does not have an “equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal,” Ariz. R.P.
Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona 287 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona 287 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
[and] made part of this file only.” ¶5 “Whether to accept special action jurisdiction is for this court to decide in the exercise of our discretion.”
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
§ 13-901.01.” Jurisdiction ¶4 “Whether to accept special action jurisdiction is for this court to decide in the exercise of our discretion.”
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See Harper v. Canyon Land Dev., LLC, -34 (App. 2008)
Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack 282 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack 282 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
SPECIAL-ACTION JURISDICTION ¶6 “Whether to accept special action jurisdiction is for this court to decide in the exercise of our discretion.” 1260 (App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Curtis T. Bunton 279 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Curtis T. Bunton 279 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cf. Potter v. 4 Vanderpool, (court cannot insert words into Rule 11.2).
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Jennifer Braillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Jennifer Braillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(court abuses discretion when it commits legal error).
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“Whether to accept special action jurisdiction is for this court to decide in the exercise of our discretion.”).
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
(“Whether to accept special action jurisdiction is for this court to decide in the exercise of our discretion.”).
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
„keeping in mind that the best reflection of that intent is the plain language of the rule.‟”
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011