Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Goodman v. State, 393 P.2d 148.

45 citing documents.

Findlay v. Lewis 831 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Findlay v. Lewis 831 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
see generally Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann., Vol.
White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Pima County Juvenile Action Nos. B-8272 & J-65774 v. Fisher 616 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1980
Pima County Juvenile Action Nos. B-8272 & J-65774 v. Fisher 616 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1980
Brown v. State 573 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1978
Brown v. State 573 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1978
Stevenson v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 510 P.2d 384 Ariz. 1973
Stevenson v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 510 P.2d 384 Ariz. 1973
In re Buccheri, supra, 6 Ariz.App.
Adams v. Dion 509 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1973
Adams v. Dion 509 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1973
Quintana v. Myers 492 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1972
Quintana v. Myers 492 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1972
We have often held that we look to the substance rather than the form, , .
Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson 485 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1971
Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson 485 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1971
Lawrence v. Valley National Bank 478 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1970
Lawrence v. Valley National Bank 478 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1970
Maxwell v. McBryde 469 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Maxwell v. McBryde 469 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County 461 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County 461 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Division Two relied upon Erdman in support of its result in the Shenfield case, along with the Supreme Court’s , to *607 the effect that in extraordinary writ matters, “We look to substance not to form.” We do not think that the Supreme Court intended by these cases to lay down a construction of Section 12-120.21, subsec.
State v. Brown 451 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Brown 451 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Application of Buccheri, 6 Ariz.App.
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 451 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1969
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 451 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1969
.” The appellant had full opportunity, -by brief and by oral argument, to meet the issues of this case in the summary judgment proceedings in the trial court.
Rodriquez v. Williams 451 P.2d 609 Ariz. 1969
Rodriquez v. Williams 451 P.2d 609 Ariz. 1969
Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Churton 448 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Churton 448 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
See, e. g., , Application of Buccheri, 6 Ariz.App.
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
: *85 “We look to substance, not to form.” , .
State v. Morris 439 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Morris 439 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
and State v. Adams, 4 Ariz.App.
Application of Buccheri 431 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Application of Buccheri 431 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Substance being of the essence, the appellate courts of this state authorized to grant relief by extraordinary writs are inclined to grant appropriate relief notwithstanding the writ applied for is labeled otherwise, , State ex rel.
State v. Bowling 427 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Bowling 427 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Adams 419 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Adams 419 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
We look to substance not to form.”
State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
There must he a statute specifically prohibiting the act.”
Palmer v. State 407 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1965
Palmer v. State 407 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1965