DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eyman v. Cumbo, 405 P.2d 889.

26 citing documents.

  • Greehling v. State 662 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1982
  • Greehling v. State 662 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1982
    377 , Oswald *500 v. Martin
  • State v. Ferguson 579 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Ferguson 579 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1978
  • Yanich v. Eyman ex rel. State 503 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1972
  • Yanich v. Eyman ex rel. State 503 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1972
    at p. 1090 (Emphasis supplied).”
  • State v. Cumbo 451 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Cumbo 451 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Federico 448 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Federico 448 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1968
    Ronan v. Superior Court, etc., , ; , .
  • Boies v. Anderson 435 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Boies v. Anderson 435 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Leonard v. Eyman, 1 Ariz.App.
  • Justice Court of Tempe Precinct v. Keswick 433 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1967
  • Justice Court of Tempe Precinct v. Keswick 433 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1967
    It is final and conclusive upon the superior courts and the judges thereof, and they may not question such judgment, neither are they permitted to hamper or impede the due and timely execution of such judgment.” , ; , we reaffirmed the principles of Galbraith prohibiting inferior courts from impeding or hampering the judgments of higher courts or rendering a judgment “differing in one jot or tittle” from that which a higher court has pronounced.
  • State v. Noriega 429 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Noriega 429 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Pill 425 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Pill 425 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Kruchten 417 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
  • Garcia v. Eyman 417 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Kruchten 417 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
    However, noting that Arizona has consistently held that habeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a judgment of conviction, , ; Application of Oppenheimer, , ; , 222 F.2d 632 ; State ex rel.
  • Garcia v. Eyman 417 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    held, that matters which had been raised on appeal or which might reasonably have been raised, are finally adjudicated thereby, and cannot be re-litigated by means of habeas corpus.
  • State v. Court of Appeals, Division Two 416 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Court of Appeals, Division Two 416 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1966
    held, that matters which had been raised on appeal or which might reasonably have been raised, are finally adjudicated thereby, and cannot be relitigated by means of habeas corpus.
  • State v. Rogers 407 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Rogers 407 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    ief: “ * * * Additionally, it might he collaterally noted that appellant has been conditionally released from the penitentiary pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus and it will be necessary for the State to acquire jurisdiction over him by some legal process in order to proceed in an orderly manner.” This action was undoubtedly taken before the Supreme Court’s , decided on the 29th of September 1965.