Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, 302 P.2d 263.

26 citing documents.

Don L. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 975 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Don L. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 975 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Sec., 178 Ariz. at 240, 871 P.2d at 1176
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
the Supreme Court has available the traditional method of [altering the rules]____ [S]uch a technique of reform is superior to the case-to-case decisional approach, with its concomitant uncertainty and conflicts, individualizing facts, and in-articulated basic assumptions of poli cy.” -36 , -69 (1956) (Struekmeyer, J., dissenting) -"'rttions omitted) (emphasis added) ( , ).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(recognizing “inherent powers” as “indispensable if a court is to perform the duties specifically assigned to it”); Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-36723-1 v. Superior Ct, , 561 P.
Appeal in Pima County v. Superior Court 561 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
Appeal in Pima County v. Superior Court 561 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
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 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
this Court held that notwithstanding the limitation of Rule 195, the inherent power to order production and inspection broader than Rule 195 still resided in the superior courts.
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
: “At the outset let it be clearly understood we are of the opinion a defendant does not have an unqualified right to inspect -his written statement in the hands of the prosecutor * * * but that an application for same is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and, speaking generall
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 390 P.2d 109 Ariz. 1964
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 390 P.2d 109 Ariz. 1964
with regard to the discovery rule as applied to the right of a defendant to examine his own statement: “It should be noted that while the inspection is not authorized under said Rule, the Rule itself does not express a *332 policy prohibiting discovery; hence, the court is free under its inherent
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
State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1957
State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1957