Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Mahoney v. Superior Court, 275 P.2d 887.

44 citing documents.

Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(court’s “inherent powers” are “powers which were not given by legislation and which no legislation can take away”).
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
Mahoney v. Superior Court (Stevens), ).
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
Reinhold v. Board of Supervisors 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Reinhold v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NAVAJO CTY. 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Reinhold v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NAVAJO CTY. 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
("powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and constitution of the tribunals themselves"); Clerk of Court's Compensation for Lyon County v. Lyon County Commissioners, 308 Minn. 172 , 241 N.W.2d 781 (1976) ("Inherent judicial power governs that which is essential to the existence, di
Reinhold v. Board of Supervisors 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
(“powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and constitution of the tribunals themselves”); Clerk of Court’s Compensation for Lyon County v. Lyon County Commissioners, 308 Minn. 172 , 241 N.W.2d 781 (1976) (“Inherent judicial power governs that which is essential to the existence, di
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
: The ‘inherent powers’ of a court are an unexpressed quantity and undefinable term, and the courts have indulged in *34 more or less loose explanations concerning it.
STATE DeCONCINI v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA CTY. 509 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
STATE DeCONCINI v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA CTY. 509 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Zarate v. Jennings, 17 Ariz.App.
Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Moore v. State 467 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1970
Moore v. State 467 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1970
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Tages 457 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Tages 457 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Pedro v. Glenn 446 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Pedro v. Glenn 446 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1968
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1968
held that superior courts in this state have the inherent power to order production and inspection as an aid to the criminal defendant’s preparation for trial.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 433 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 433 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Burke v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 416 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Burke v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 416 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1966
State v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1966
we examined extensively into the question of whether the State should be required to produce for inspection certain documents, papers *383 and tangible objects.
State v. Wallace 399 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1965
State v. Wallace 399 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1965
we examined extensively into the question of whether the State should be required to produce for inspection certain documents, papers and tangible objects.
State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
State v. Superior Court of Cochise County 367 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1961
State v. Superior Court of Cochise County 367 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1961
a homicide case, defendant moved for production of and an opportunity to inspect (1) documents and papers constituting the “work product” of the prosecutor and (2) “tangible physical objects such as pistols, a lead slug taken from the body of the man whom he was accused of killing; a shirt, car
State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1957
State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1957
Pintek v. Superior Court of Arizona 304 P.2d 392 Ariz. 1956
Pintek v. Superior Court of Arizona 304 P.2d 392 Ariz. 1956
State v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County 302 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1956
State v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County 302 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1956
(which is hereinafter referred to as the Demand case).