DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Conference Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists v. Barry, 231 P.2d 426.

34 citing documents.

  • County Attorney v. Superior Court 464 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • County Attorney v. Superior Court 464 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Therein our Supreme Court stated: “The Barry case [ , ] was a civil case but the principles of law by which we determine whether one had lost his right to a fair and impartial judge are, of course, the same whether the case be civil or criminal.
  • Badertscher v. Badertscher 460 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Badertscher v. Badertscher 460 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    at transpired before Judge Truman is apparently going to be an issue in this case * * * the right thing to do in this matter would be to refer the matter back to Judge Truman for disposition, because she, better than anyone else, knows what transpired in the hearing before her when she issued the order.” , applies and controls our disposition of this matter.
  • Truck Equipment Co. of Arizona v. Vanlandingham 442 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1968
  • Truck Equipment Co. of Arizona v. Vanlandingham 442 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1968
    In Marsin we disapproved our ruling made in a previous case, Arizona Conference Corp., , to the extent that *404 it was authority for the proposition that a party permitting a judge to pass upon any litigated or contested matter whatever, either on motion or plea, waives his right to disqualify the judge.
  • State v. Tatkenhorst 437 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Tatkenhorst 437 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1968
    * * >¡í í¡í Hí iji íjí “ , , the rule in regard to waiver of the peremptory right was given a more strict interpretation, and the New Mexico rule that the affidavit was timely if filed before the judge has ruled on any contested matter whatsoever was adopted.
  • State v. Neil 425 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Neil 425 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1967
    1033, 104 P. 493 .” 33 Ariz. at 402 , 265 P. at 616 , , the rule in regard to waiver of the peremptory right was given a more strict interpretation, and the New Mexico rule that the affidavit was timely if filed before the judge has ruled on any contested matter whatsoever was adopted.
  • Newsom v. Superior Court 425 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
  • Newsom v. Superior Court 425 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
    to the extent that it is authority for the proposition that a party permitting a judge to pass upon any litigated or contested matter whatever, either on motion or plea, waives his right to disqualify the judge.
  • Edwards v. Superior Court 424 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Edwards v. Superior Court 424 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    That the party filing the affidavit has cause to believe and does believe that on account of the bias, prejudice, or interest of the judge he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial.” The two leading cases in Arizona are:
  • Bagwell v. Deddens 424 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Bagwell v. Deddens 424 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    >{í >{c sj: ‡ sji s|: “THE COURT: Let’s try to confine ourselves to these narrow issues and see what we can arrive at.” Under many Arizona holdings, , , this Court must decide if such an affidavit of disqualification of the respondent judge should be honored and the writ made peremptory.
  • State v. Neil 419 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Neil 419 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    it was held to be “untimely” to file an affidavit of bias and prejudice when the judge has heard and ruled on «* * * a litigated and contested matter.” 72 Ariz. at 76 , .
  • State v. Miranda 416 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Miranda 416 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    the court had indicated that “ * * * ruling on any litigated or contested matter whatsoever .
  • Smith v. Rabb 386 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1963
  • Smith v. Rabb 386 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1963
  • Hordyk v. Farley 382 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1963
  • Hordyk v. Farley 382 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Quintana 376 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Quintana 376 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
    wherein it was stated: *105 “ * * * It is the duty of a judge * * * to exercise the judicial functions duly conferred on him by law, and he has no right to disqualify himself in the absence of a 'valid reason * * * ” 72 Ariz. at 77 , 231 P.2d at 428 .
  • American Buyers Life Insurance v. Superior Court 329 P.2d 1100 Ariz. 1958
  • American Buyers Life Insurance v. Superior Court 329 P.2d 1100 Ariz. 1958
  • Marsin v. Udall 279 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1955
  • Marsin v. Udall 279 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1955
    The contention of respondent is that while petitioner was not barred from filing his affidavit by reason of the provisions of the three-day rule, section 44 — 1204, supra, , .
  • Zuniga v. Superior Court of State 269 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1954
  • Distinguished Zuniga v. Superior Court of State 269 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1954
    for there the judge had conducted a hearing on an order to show cause for a temporary injunction and had made rulings on litigated and contested matters.