Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Duncan v. Truman, 248 P.2d 879.

44 citing documents.

SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Id.; -82 (1952); see also Ariz. Dep’t of Rev. v. Navopache Elec.
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Anderson, 270 P.3d at 881-82; -82 (1952) (noting lack of jurisdiction over de novo appeal in superior court).
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
(“[A] ‘license’ is a ‘permit, granted by the sovereign, generally for a consideration .
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
Schoenberger v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ETC. 606 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1980
Schoenberger v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ETC. 606 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1980
Goff v. Superior Courts in and for the Counties of Pima and Maricopa, 2 Ariz.App.
Jones v. Lopez Plascencia 458 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Jones v. Lopez Plascencia 458 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Our Supreme Court has stated that “The word ‘jurisdiction’ has different shades of meaning and as applied to certiorari and prohibition matters it should not be given a too restrictive meaning.”
Crouch v. Justice of the Peace Court of the Sixth Precinct 440 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Crouch v. Justice of the Peace Court of the Sixth Precinct 440 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
715 , , and acts where the lower tribunal has abused its discretion.
Goff v. Superior Courts in and for Counties of Pima and Maricopa 409 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Goff v. Superior Courts in and for Counties of Pima and Maricopa 409 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Juris *347 diction is the power to decide a case on its merits whereas venue relates to the place where the suit may be heard * * * ” , In Sil-Flo, the court gave again the epitomized definition of jurisdiction, , : “* * * jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine * If there be but one superior court in the State of Arizona, then the ruling upon a motion for a change of venue of a case filed in the court is certainly a matter within the jurisdiction of the court.
State Racing Commission v. Superior Court 407 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State Racing Commission v. Superior Court 407 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Sil-Flo Corporation v. Bowen 402 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1965
Sil-Flo Corporation v. Bowen 402 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1965
we said that “jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine.” The definition of “jurisdiction of the subject matter” most often quoted by this Court is found in Foltz v. St.
Hooper v. Duncan 389 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
Hooper v. Duncan 389 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
Brand v. Elledge 360 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1961
Brand v. Elledge 360 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1961
Both the plaintiff and defendant cite prior decisions of this Court, namely, Clark v, Tinnin, , ; , ; , ; , .
State v. Superior Court 344 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1959
State v. Superior Court 344 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1959
Ward v. Stevens 344 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1959
Ward v. Stevens 344 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1959
Siler v. Superior Court 316 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1957
Siler v. Superior Court 316 P.2d 296 Ariz. 1957
Hazard v. Superior Court 310 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1957
Hazard v. Superior Court 310 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1957
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Thomas 297 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1956
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Thomas 297 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1956
In Duncan v. Truman, 1952, , , we said: “By its very nature a writ of certiorari never issues to correct mere error committed by a lower tribunal, but, as our statute on certiorari, supra, indicates, an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case is not required.
State v. Stevens 288 P.2d 1077 Ariz. 1955
State v. Stevens 288 P.2d 1077 Ariz. 1955
5 A.L.R.2d 668 ; see also other cases cited therein.
Schuster v. Schuster 251 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1952
Schuster v. Schuster 251 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1952
Vazzano v. Superior Court 249 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1952
Vazzano v. Superior Court 249 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1952