Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Phelps, 193 P.2d 921.

50 citing documents.

State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry; not whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong.” ¶ 10 (App. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) ().
Angel B. v. Vanessa J. 316 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Angel B. v. Vanessa J. 316 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-25 (1948); ¶ 5 , (noting this court “has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal”).
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry; not whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong.’” , quoting Tube City Mining & Mill.
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
the 7 tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry; not whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong.’” quoting Tube City Mining & 146 P. 203, 206 (1914).
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-27789 680 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-27789 680 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
State v. Anderson 449 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Anderson 449 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Johnson & Douglas v. Superior Court 419 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1966
Johnson & Douglas v. Superior Court 419 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1966
Modig v. Superior Court 413 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Modig v. Superior Court 413 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
He states that since his appeal entitles him to a trial de novo in superior court “and the case will be heard on both the law and the facts as though it had originated in the superior court,” , and Ex parte Coone, 67 Ariz. *289 299, 303, the burden is upon the county attorney to move the prosecution forward.
Caruso v. Superior Court 406 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Caruso v. Superior Court 406 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Reliance is placed by the respondents upon decisions of our Supreme Court holding that a writ of prohibition cannot be used for the purpose of correcting errors made by a lower court
Blende v. Stanford 403 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1965
Blende v. Stanford 403 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1965
State v. Kostura 403 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1965
State v. Kostura 403 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1965
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Tang
Bailey v. Superior Court 399 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1965
Bailey v. Superior Court 399 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1965
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Tang 400 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1965
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Tang 400 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1965
Burns v. Superior Court 397 P.2d 448 Ariz. 1964
Burns v. Superior Court 397 P.2d 448 Ariz. 1964
John F. Long Homes, Inc. v. Holohan 396 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1964
John F. Long Homes, Inc. v. Holohan 396 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1964
■ Respondent first contends that mandamus is -not the proper remedy, , .
Board of Supervisors of Pima County v. Harrington 333 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1958
Harless v. Lockwood 332 P.2d 887 Ariz. 1958
Harless v. Lockwood 332 P.2d 887 Ariz. 1958
this categorical statement relative to mandamus appears: “ * * *.
State Board of Dispensing Opticians v. Carp 330 P.2d 996 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Dispensing Opticians v. Carp 330 P.2d 996 Ariz. 1958
Pintek v. Superior Court 327 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1958
Pintek v. Superior Court 327 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1958
Carp v. Superior Court 325 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1958
Carp v. Superior Court 325 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1958
Ross v. Industrial Commission 307 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1957
Ross v. Industrial Commission 307 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1957
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Pressley 250 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1952
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Pressley 250 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1952
See Weaver v. Martori, 1949, , ; State v. Phelps, 1948, , ; Dolese Bros. v. Tollett, 1933, 162 Okl.
Meloy v. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. 236 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1951
Meloy v. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. 236 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1951
Tschuor v. Meck 232 P.2d 848 Ariz. 1951
Tschuor v. Meck 232 P.2d 848 Ariz. 1951
in support of their argument, to wit: “ ‘ “Jurisdiction over the subject-matter” is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over that class of cases; not the particular case before it, but rather the abstract power to try a case of the kind or character of the one pending; * * * Section