Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marsin v. Udall, 279 P.2d 721.

80 citing documents.

Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
: Of course, one may with knowledge of the facts, consent that his case be tried before a judge he thinks is biased and prejudiced.
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
State v. Hon. mahoney/ragsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hon. mahoney/ragsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(when legislature creates substantive right, court may not diminish that right by procedural rule); ("Any rule of court that operates to lessen or eliminate the right is of no legal force.").
State v. Mahoney in and for County of Maricopa 442 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mahoney in and for County of Maricopa 442 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Daou v. Harris , , 358, , 939 (1984) (when legislature creates substantive right, court may not diminish that right by procedural rule); Marsin v. Udall , , 312, , 723 (1955) ("Any rule of court that operates to lessen or eliminate the right is of no legal force.").
Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
We concluded this statute “imposes no time limitation,” and that under a 1955 decision, “it is too late to disqualify” a judge if he or she “is allowed to receive evidence which of necessity is to be used and weighed in deciding the ultimate issues.” Itasca State Bank, 8 Ariz. App. at 281, 445 P.2d at 557, P.2d 721 (1955).
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(errors not raised in trial court cannot be asserted on appeal); (untimely to move to disqualify judge when judgment already rendered on pleadings).
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(“[B]efore one can be said to have waived [a] right, he must have had an opportunity to exercise it.”).
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
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
State v. Neil, 102 Ariz. at 112 , 425 P.2d at 844
Denise S., Carlos C. v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Denise S., Carlos C. v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
P.2d 721 (1955), and Newsom v. 8 Superior Court, P.2d 422 (1967).
Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
“A waiver is a voluntary relinquishing of a known right.”
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(timeliness rule is subject to law of waiver, and one cannot waive right to change judge absent an opportunity to exercise it); , (whether a notice of change of commissioner is timely filed depends on the law of waiver)
Morga v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Guarrascio v. Fisher 741 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Morga v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Guarrascio v. Fisher 741 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Rhodes v. Fisher 681 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rhodes v. Fisher 681 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The State Bar Committee Note with respect to subsection (D) dealing with waiver points out that the above-quoted portion of the rule expressly includes affidavits as well as other types of evidence concerning the merits of the action and that the remainder of the rule is consistent with existing case law
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Gant v. Helm 545 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Gant v. Helm 545 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
The State Bar Committee Note with respect to subsection (D) dealing with waiver points out that the above-quoted portion of the rule expressly includes affidavits as well as other types of evidence concerning the merits of the action and that the remainder of the rule is consistent with existing case law
Del Castillo v. Wells 523 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Del Castillo v. Wells 523 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
315 , 725 (1955), judicially delineated when an affidavit would be considered untimely as follows: “As we analyze the previous pronouncements of this court, it had been ruled that when evidence is taken, the right to challenge the judge on grounds of bias and prejudice is waived, if the eviden
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Anonymous, Juvenile Action No. J 24818-2 515 P.2d 600 Ariz. 1973
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Anonymous, Juvenile Action No. J 24818-2 515 P.2d 600 Ariz. 1973
is a valuable substantive right originating in the common law and recognized by statute in both criminal and civil cases.”
Chalpin v. Mobile Gardens, Inc. 501 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Chalpin v. Mobile Gardens, Inc. 501 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Foggy 486 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1971
State v. Foggy 486 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1971
State v. Hughes 475 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Hughes 475 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
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
Criminal Rule 200 states: “When an application is made to a judge for a change of judge, he shall proceed no further in the action except to call another judge to preside therein.” In our opinion, , is directly in point.