Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Application of Gault, 407 P.2d 760.

36 citing documents.

In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Action No. JV-510312, , ( , rev’d on other grounds, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
In Re Fernando C. 986 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
In Re Fernando C. 986 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
The philosophy of the juvenile court system has always been to “stand[ ] in the position of a protecting parent rather than a prosecutor.” Application of Gault, , reversed on other grounds, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JV-512600 and JV-512797 930 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JV-512600 and JV-512797 930 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The philosophy of the juvenile court is to “stand[] in the position of a protecting parent rather than a prosecutor.” Application of Gault, , rev’d on other grounds, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-510312 901 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-510312 901 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“The aim of the court is to provide individualized justice for children.” Application of Gault, , rev’d on other grounds, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
Stewart v. Superior Court 787 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Stewart v. Superior Court 787 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
2403, 2410 , 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984); see also, Application of Gault, , rev’d on other grounds, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County 722 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1986
Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County 722 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1986
Since the lodestar of the juvenile court must be “to provide individualized justice for children....”, Application of Gault, , rev’d on other grounds, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-84536-S 617 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-84536-S 617 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Application of Gault, , ; 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75482 536 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1975
Maricopa County Appeal No. J-68100 v. Haire 486 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1971
Maricopa County Appeal No. J-68100 v. Haire 486 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1971
Application of Gault, , ; 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
Adoptive Parents v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1970
Adoptive Parents v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1970
Application of Gault, , reversed 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct.
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
Referring to the Ginn case, our Supreme Court stated, in Application of Gault, at 186 , , at 764 (1965): We agree with the scholarly opinion of our appellate tribunal and hold that there is no right of appeal from a juvenile court order, nor does the general appeal statute apply, § 12-2101 A.R.S.; * * *.
Application of Billie 429 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Application of Billie 429 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Ginn v. Superior Court, In and For County of Pima, , Application of Gault
State v. Maloney 433 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1967
State v. Maloney 433 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1967
See Application of Gault, , Marsden v. Commonwealth, 227 N.E.2d 1 (Mass.1967).
Anguis v. Superior Court 429 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Anguis v. Superior Court 429 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Parents v. Molloy 414 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Parents v. Molloy 414 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Flynn v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 414 P.2d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Flynn v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 414 P.2d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In view of the fact that “the aim of the court is to provide individualized justice for children”, (Application of Gault, , [1965]) we do not believe that a blanket order referring all of a certain class of law violators to preappointed referees for hearing of their cases is sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement of determination of a child’s best interests.
Ginn v. Superior Court 413 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Ginn v. Superior Court 413 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Our Supreme Court of Arizona in the case of Application of Gault, , has recently stated that “[o]nce acquired, the jurisdiction of the court over the child continues until he is 21 years of age unless sooner discharged.” This pronouncement of the highest court of this state is adverse to petitioners’ contention.
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
Application of Gault, , .