Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McGee v. Arizona State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 376 P.2d 779.

28 citing documents.

Merrick v. Aboec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Merrick v. Aboec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Pardons & Paroles, but it “does not require that applicants for commutation be provided with reasons for [a] denial,” Banks, 129 Ariz. at 202.
Ingersoll v. Abec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ingersoll v. Abec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Pardons and Parole, see A.R.S.
Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles 629 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles 629 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Thomas v. Ariz. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles 564 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1977
Thomas v. Ariz. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles 564 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1977
this court held that the parole board was required by statute, A.R.S.
Foggy v. Eyman 516 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1973
Foggy v. Eyman 516 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1973
This court has held, in a case wherein the applicant was sentenced to death, that a hearing must be held upon a proper application for commutation of sentence pursuant to § 31-411 A.R.S.
Sheppard v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 500 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Sheppard v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 500 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Although not called upon to resolve this question, , : “By A.R.S.
Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court 482 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court 482 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Cagle Brothers Trucking Service v. Arizona Cor *288 poration Commission, , ; , ; Walker v. County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.2d 626 , 12 Cal.Rptr.
State ex rel. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Superior Court 469 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State ex rel. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Superior Court 469 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
77 , , we stated: “In McGee [v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles, , ] the Supreme Court commented upon the fact that the Board had not adopted rules as authorized by A.R.S.
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
No reprieve, commutation, parole or pardon may be granted by the governor unless it has first been recommended by the board.”
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 , 28 S.Ct.
Application of Gault 407 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1965
Application of Gault 407 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1965
Forman v. Creighton School District No. 14, , , The problem is ascertaining the particular elements which constitute due process in a juvenile hearing.
State v. Essman 403 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1965
State v. Essman 403 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1965
Application of Levine 397 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1964
Application of Levine 397 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1964
Bennett v. Arizona State Board of Public Welfare 388 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1963
Bennett v. Arizona State Board of Public Welfare 388 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1963

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by