Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance, 422 P.2d 108.

100 citing documents.

State v. Bryars Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Bryars Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
of Ins., -48 (1966) (statutes enacted before the establishment of the Court of Appeals which confer authority on the Supreme Court also confer authority to the Court of Appeals).
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
of Ins., (“If a right of appeal is granted, then the ultimate right to determine the appeal rests in the supreme court by virtue of Article 6, § 5, and the procedure by which an appeal is perfected shall be provided by the supreme court.”).
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Rogers 366 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Rogers 366 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Ins., -49 , -13 (1966) (with certain exceptions, jurisdiction of Arizona Court of Appeals is concurrent with that of Arizona Supreme Court).
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
of Ins., -48, -12 (1966) (observing jurisdiction of court of appeals generally concurrent with that of supreme court); (finding appellate jurisdiction based partly on appeals transfer statute, A.R.S.
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
of Ins., , (stating constitutionally granted rule-making power may not be limited by legislative enactment).
Fleischman v. Protect Our City 153 P.3d 1035 Ariz. 2007
Fleischman v. Protect Our City 153 P.3d 1035 Ariz. 2007
Hancock v. Bisnar 132 P.3d 283 Ariz. 2006
Hancock v. Bisnar 132 P.3d 283 Ariz. 2006
of Ins., -49, -13 (1966).
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5; Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins., , (Supreme Court’s power to make rules “may not now be reduced or repealed by the Legislature”).
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, e.g., Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins., , (constitutionally granted rule-making power may not be limit *534 ed by legislative enactment); Jackson, 184 Ariz. at 298 , 908 P.2d at 1083 (procedural rule of court controls over conflicting statute).
State v. Jackson 908 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Jackson 908 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-58 , -39 (1984); Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins., , , ( , ).
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County 825 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1992
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County 825 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1992
In Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins., , we addressed a similar situation.
Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd. 801 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd. 801 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See generally Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins., , (The 1960 adoption of Ariz. Const, art. VI, § 5(5), vested rulemaking power exclusively in the Arizona Supreme Court.)
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins.
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
v. Director of Insurance
State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Although the predecessor to § 13-3993 was enacted subsequent to the adoption of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, since the power to make procedural rules is now vested exclusively in the supreme court, , this statute cannot constitutionally be construed as modifying or superseding the criminal rules.
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(5).
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Landgraff v. Wagner, supra
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933 660 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1982
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933 660 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1982
Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Insurance
Barassi v. Matison 636 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1981
Barassi v. Matison 636 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1981
Art. VI, § 5; , and we find this interpretation of the language of Rule 9(a) plausible.
State v. Garza 623 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Garza 623 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
Art. 6, § 5(5); , Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Insurance

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by