Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mulligan, 613 P.2d 1266.

30 citing documents.

Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 21 (App. 2009) ().
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-17 (1980) (finding no authority for appeals of contempt orders).
State v. Hon. reinstein/hendrix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. reinstein/hendrix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Maule, this court held in part that, despite the “mandatory” language of Rule 12.9, “the trial court may grant an extension of time in which to file a motion pursuant to rule 12.9,” but “the trial court has no authority to grant an extension that is not made on a timely basis.” 142 Ariz. at 515, 690 P.2d at 816; (“A defendant waives his objections to the grand jury proceeding by failing to comply with the timeliness requirement.” (citation omitted)).
In Re Marriage of Dougall 316 P.3d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
In Re Marriage of Dougall 316 P.3d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“[C]ontempt orders are unappealable unless the substance or effect of the order in question—beyond including a ‘finding[] of contempt,’—qualifies the order as one of those made appealable pursuant to § 12-2101.” Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc.
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
in which the defendant, besides appealing his criminal conviction, also sought to appeal several criminal contempt citations.
Holt v. Hotham 5 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Holt v. Hotham 5 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
§ 12-120.21(A)(4); , (contempt orders reviewable only by special action); see also State ex rel.
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Befford 754 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1988
State v. Befford 754 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1988
John Doe I v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 717 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
John Doe I v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 717 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The state concedes that a contempt order is not appealable, , but argues that special action relief is inappropriate and that the petitioners cannot demonstrate any legal prejudice which they have suffered as a result of the contempt order.
State v. Huey 699 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1985
State v. Huey 699 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1985
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
Irvin v. Dowd, supra, 366 U.S. at 723 , 81 S.Ct.
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
Mulligan v. Grace 666 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mulligan v. Grace 666 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Kelly 636 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Kelly 636 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981