Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez, 282 P.3d 424.

36 citing documents.

Hoffman v. Hon. miller/hoffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hoffman v. Hon. miller/hoffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 5 (App. 2012) (citation omitted).
State v. Stowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Stowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶¶ 4–5 (App. 2012) (declining to resolve whether the State had statutory authorization to appeal and exercising special action jurisdiction).
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pima Cty., ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (citing State ex rel.
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
EMILY ANN McGUIRE v. STATE OF ARIZONA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
EMILY ANN McGUIRE v. STATE OF ARIZONA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Hon kemp/davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon kemp/davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon ainley/head Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon ainley/head Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See State v. Bernini (Lopez), ¶ 5, (determining special action jurisdiction appropriate in case involving pure issue of law that had arisen at least twice within several months); State ex rel.
State of Arizona v. Liwski 358 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Liwski 358 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“Special action relief is appropriate if the respondent judge has abused her discretion by committing an error of law or proceeding in excess of her legal authority.”
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 5 , citing State ex rel.
Azore, LLC v. Bassett 341 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Azore, LLC v. Bassett 341 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ceasar v. Hon. campbell/state 336 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ceasar v. Hon. campbell/state 336 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See King v. Superior Court (Bauer), -50 , -90 (1983) (“[Special action] jurisdiction is frequently accepted when under no rule of law can a trial court’s actions be justified.”); ¶ 6 , (“Special action relief is appropriate if the respondent judge has abused her discretion by committing an error of law or proceeding in excess of her legal authority.”); , (“Special action jurisdiction may be assume
State v. Hon. mroz/saldate/milke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. mroz/saldate/milke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 5, citing State ex rel.
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
¶ 5 , (taking special action jurisdiction in consideration of a reoccurring sentencing issue).
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland 310 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland 310 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
We may accept special action jurisdiction when the “remedy by appeal is not ‘equally plain’ compared to [a] remedy by special action.”
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
quoting Ariz. R. P. Spec.