Cited by

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

80 citing documents.

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
The court further stated that a judge may not assign a case ‘ * * * when the judge has heard and ruled on contested matters.” , the court disapproved of the Barry ruling that if a judge ruled on any litigated or contested matter it was too late to disqualify, , 152 P. 164 (1915).
West v. Superior Court 448 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1968
West v. Superior Court 448 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1968
152 P. 164 , which held that an affidavit had been timely filed even though the trial judge had previously passed upon certain preliminary matters.
State v. Meek 445 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Itasca State Bank v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Itasca State Bank v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
wherein the Supreme Court stated: “* * * [Tjhis court is committed to the rule that if a judge is allowed to receive evidence which of necessity is to be used and weighed in deciding the ultimate issues, it is too late to disqualify him on the ground of bias and prejudice.
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
State v. Tatkenhorst 437 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1968
State v. Tatkenhorst 437 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1968
Hendrickson v. Superior Court, etc., , , 73 A.L.R.2d 1235 ; , .
State Ex Rel. Riley v. Collins 435 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State Ex Rel. Riley v. Collins 435 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
and our Supreme Court has stated: “ , , 73 A.L.R.2d 1235 , we specifically recognized two types of affidavits of bias and prejudice.
State v. Neil 425 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1967
State v. Neil 425 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1967
Newsom v. Superior Court 425 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
Newsom v. Superior Court 425 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
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
Our Supreme Court has said that the principles involving the disqualification of a judge are “ * * * the same whether the case be civil or criminal.”
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
Hordyk v. Farley 382 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1963
Hordyk v. Farley 382 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1963
State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
Moreover, insofar as the Barry case holds that a ruling made on a motion prohibits the judge from being disqualified
City of Tucson v. Koerber 313 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1957