Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Perkins, 686 P.2d 1248.

73 citing documents.

State v. Mendoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Mendoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–24 (1984) (Defense counsel admitted that he failed to interview between 20 and 30 witnesses.); (A substitute counsel at sentencing stated he was unfamiliar with the case and had nothing to say on the defendant’s behalf.); –50 (1983) (Trial counsel refused to actively participate in the trial after his motion to disqualify the judge was refused.).
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Identification procedures commenced soon after a crime can be beneficial in at least three ways: identification accuracy is fostered because an image of the culprit is still fresh in the victim’s mind; innocent persons can be released immediately; and the police can be immediately freed to resume their search for the suspect while the trail is still fresh.”
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
in which two fact witnesses violated the trial court’s exclusion order.
Scott Allen Woodington v. State of Arizona 378 P.3d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Scott Allen Woodington v. State of Arizona 378 P.3d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶17 Our supreme court has directed that “any provision relating to disqualification of judges must be given strict construction to safeguard the judiciary from frivolous attacks upon its dignity and integrity and to ensure the orderly function of the judicial system.” P.2d 1228 (1987).
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
towards one of the litigants.”
Edward P. Bolding v. State of Arizona 148 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Edward P. Bolding v. State of Arizona 148 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶16 “[A]ny provision relating to disqualification of judges must be given strict construction to safeguard the judiciary from frivolous attacks upon its dignity and integrity and to ensure the orderly function of the judicial system.” overruled on other grounds, -88, -32 (1987).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
( , overruled on other grounds, , ).
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
The fact that a judge may have an opinion as to the merits of the cause or a strong feeling about the type of litigation involved, does not make the judge biased or prejudiced.” ( (quoting In re Guardianship of Styer, 24 Ariz. App. l48, 151, )); Shaman et al., supra, § 4.04, at 113 (“However, neither bias nor prejudice refer to the attitude that a judge may hold about t
Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
Hill v. Hall Ex Rel. County of Yuma 980 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Hill v. Hall Ex Rel. County of Yuma 980 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
at 425 , 752 P.2d at 514 (citations omitted) ( , overruled on other grounds, , ).
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
overruled on other grounds by State v. Noble, 152 Ariz. *510 284 , Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
Scarborough v. Superior Court 889 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Scarborough v. Superior Court 889 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
As noted in Chavez , this court must give strict construction to any provision relating to disqualification of judges in order “to safeguard the judiciary from frivolous attacks upon its dignity and integrity and to ensure the orderly function of the judicial system.” 181 Ariz. at 95 , 887 P.2d at 625
Chavez v. SUPERIOR COURT CTY. OF MARICOPA 887 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chavez v. SUPERIOR COURT CTY. OF MARICOPA 887 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
We acknowledge that “any provision relating to disqualification of judges must be given strict construction to safeguard the judiciary from frivolous attacks upon its dignity and integrity and to ensure the orderly function of the judicial system.”
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by