Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Zimmerman v. Superior Court, 402 P.2d 212.

40 citing documents.

Calisto Mariko Wells v. State of Arizona 297 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Calisto Mariko Wells v. State of Arizona 297 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
See Helena Chemical Company v. Coury Brothers Ranches, Inc., , see also
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
There being no remedy by appeal and the issues raised in this special action being sufficiently important to justify review, , , we accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5(4).
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Bleak 656 P.2d 600 Ariz. 1982
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Bleak 656 P.2d 600 Ariz. 1982
Preston Motor Co., Inc. v. Palomares 650 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Preston Motor Co., Inc. v. Palomares 650 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Ries v. McComb, 25 Ariz.App.
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. 616 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. 616 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Camelback Contractors, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 608 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Camelback Contractors, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 608 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
the court stated: “The Arizona cases beginning with Dean [v. Superior Court, , ] to [State ex rel.
Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Jolly v. Superior Court of Pinal County 540 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1975
Jolly v. Superior Court of Pinal County 540 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1975
Dean v. Superior Court, supra.
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
we hold that Edwards has shown this court no prejudice arising out of these events and consequently no error was committed.
MacDonald v. Hyder 471 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
MacDonald v. Hyder 471 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Phoenix v. Peterson 462 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Peterson 462 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Pedro v. Glenn 446 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Pedro v. Glenn 446 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Maricopa County v. Peterson 439 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Maricopa County v. Peterson 439 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
modified the holding in the Dean case and sustains the ruling under consideration at this time.
McRae v. Forren 428 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
McRae v. Forren 428 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Though this court expressed its special “reason” for the denial of this particular writ, it did not intend to rule out the possibility that its denial was supported by the law generally applicable to the granting of special writs that the granting of a writ is always discretionary with the court, 14 Am.Jur.2d Certiorari § 7, p. 783, Zimmerman v. Superior Court, etc., , (prohibition), or that a special writ should not be granted when an appeal affords an adequate remedy.
Dotseth v. Justice Court, Tucson, Precinct No. One 427 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Dotseth v. Justice Court, Tucson, Precinct No. One 427 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Stines v. Superior Court 424 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1967
Followed Stines v. Superior Court 424 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1967
S., the trial judge should examine such evidence for the purpose of determining whether it is for impeachment purposes, , .
Taylor v. Stanford 414 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1966
Taylor v. Stanford 414 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1966
Caruso v. Superior Court, supra, , , .
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
where the court said of the writ of prohibition: ^"It is an extraordinary remedy granted usually only in cases of necessity, and is ordinarily a matter of sound discretion, to be granted or withheld by the court according to th
Jacobson v. Superior Court 402 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Jacobson v. Superior Court 402 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
As recently stated by our Supreme Court in Zimmerman v. Superior Court,, , filed May 24, 1965: “ * * * prohibition is an extraordinary remedy granted only in rare cases, and is a matter of sound discretion, to be granted or withheld by the court according to the nature or circumstances of the case.