Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Chapple, 660 P.2d 1208.

392 citing documents.

State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
¶70 Photographs of a victim’s body are always relevant because “the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” ( ).
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
To find an abuse of discretion, there must either be no evidence to support the superior court’s conclusion or the reasons given by the court must be “clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983); United Imports and Exports, Inc. v. Super.
Denise S., Carlos C. v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Denise S., Carlos C. v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
-85 (2003); n.18, n.18 (1983).
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
See State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 288
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
An abuse of discretion occurs when “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 297 n.18, n.18 (1983).
Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
-85 (2003); n.18, n.18 (1983).
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
P.3d 282 (2003); P.2d 1208 (1983).
In Re Hyrum H. 131 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In Re Hyrum H. 131 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Similarly, a discretionary act which reaches an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence ‘is an abuse.’ ” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983) (citations omitted).
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
A court abuses its discretion if the reasons given for its action are “legally incorrect.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶12 An abuse of discretion occurs only when “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” n.18, n.18 (1983).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
‘look over the shoulder’ of the trial judge and, if appropriate, substitute our judgment for his or hers.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
¶ 94 Moody’s second argument regarding the questionnaire is that “the trial court’s stated reason for rejecting the written questions was factually incorrect, i.e., that it never intended to give a written questionnaire.” , in support of his arguments.
State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 297 n.18, n.18 (1983) (“abuse of discretion” includes situations 5 “where the reasons given by the court for its action are .
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
State v. Hantman Riedel 65 P.3d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Hantman Riedel 65 P.3d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.2d 1208 (1983) (equating abuse of discretion with legally incorrect ruling).
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
Co., , , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
n.18, n.18 (1983) (citations omitted).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
¶ 66 “[A]ny photograph of the deceased m any murder case is relevant to assist a jury to understand an issue because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” , (internal quotations and alterations omitted) ( , ).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
¶66 “[A]ny photograph of the deceased in any murder case is relevant to assist a jury to understand an issue because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” (internal quotations and alterations omitted) ( ).
Guardians v. Wells 34 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2001
Guardians v. Wells 34 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2001
297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by