Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Oswald v. Martin, 222 P.2d 632.

40 citing documents.

State v. Bolton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bolton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Maldonado 223 P.3d 653 Ariz. 2010
State v. Maldonado 223 P.3d 653 Ariz. 2010
(stating that “[h]abeas corpus cannot be used as a means of reviewing errors and irregularities which do not [a]ffect the jurisdiction of the court”).
Sims v. Ryan 890 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Sims v. Ryan 890 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(a jail or prison inmate’s habeas corpus proceeding is a civil collateral attack on a criminal judgment).
Greehling v. State 662 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1982
Greehling v. State 662 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1982
377 , Oswald *500 v. Martin
HML v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
H. M. L. v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
HML v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
H. M. L. v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Yanich v. Eyman ex rel. State 503 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1972
Yanich v. Eyman ex rel. State 503 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1972
And though a habeas corpus proceeding is a civil action collaterally attacking the judgment of conviction, Oswald v. Martin, 70 Ariz.' 392, 397,' , it is nevertheless directed to the same matter which is the subject of the appeal.
Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Boies v. Anderson 435 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Boies v. Anderson 435 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Leonard v. Eyman, 1 Ariz.App.
Counterman v. Counterman 433 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Counterman v. Counterman 433 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Application of Buccheri 431 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Application of Buccheri 431 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Kruchten 417 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
Garcia v. Eyman 417 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Kruchten 417 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
However, noting that Arizona has consistently held that habeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a judgment of conviction, , ; Application of Oppenheimer, , ; , 222 F.2d 632 ; State ex rel.
Garcia v. Eyman 417 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Court of Appeals, Division Two 416 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1966
State v. Court of Appeals, Division Two 416 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1966
Yanez v. State 412 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Yanez v. State 412 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Applications of Oppenheimer, , Petition of Walker, , rehearing denied
Eyman v. Cumbo 405 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1965
Eyman v. Cumbo 405 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1965
And though a habeas corpus proceeding is a civil action collaterally attacking the judgment of conviction, , , it is nevertheless directed to the same matter which is the subject of the appeal.
Applications of Oppenheimer 389 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1964
Applications of Oppenheimer 389 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1964
Eyman v. Deutsch 373 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1962
Eyman v. Deutsch 373 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1962
we quoted the following with approval: “The sole question involved is that of jurisdiction * * • * that is, the question as to whether the court had jurisdiction of the person of the petitioner and of the subject matter, and according to prevailing view, power to render the particular
Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Barlow 296 P.2d 298 Ariz. 1956
Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Barlow 296 P.2d 298 Ariz. 1956
Ordinarily the sole function of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine the right to detain the individual of his liberty, , .
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Superior Court 280 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1955
Followed State Ex Rel. Jones v. Superior Court 280 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1955

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by