Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County, 410 P.2d 479.

130 citing documents.

Bruce v. State 614 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1980
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 589 P.2d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 589 P.2d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
City of Phoenix v. Jones 542 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Phoenix v. Jones 542 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In our prior decision, this court attempted to reconcile what
City of Phoenix v. Jones 541 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Phoenix v. Jones 541 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Goldman v. Kautz 531 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
Goldman v. Kautz 531 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
City Court of City of Tucson v. Lee 494 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
City Court of City of Tucson v. Lee 494 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
■ We think it is notable that our own Supreme Court, , when considering whether or not a jury trial was available in a case involving a violation of a state statute, held that in determining whether a crime is a petty offense that constitutionally may be tried without a jury, the severity of the penalty, as well as the moral quality of the act and i
Campbell v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF GILA 470 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Campbell v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF GILA 470 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
579 (Michigan 1960); Danner v. Hass, 257 Iowa 654 , 134 N.W.2d 534 (1965); Howard v. State, supra
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
St. Ex Rel. De Concini v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, Pima County 454 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
St. Ex Rel. De Concini v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, Pima County 454 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Though this decision was “affirmed” by the Supreme Court, , , 16 A.L.R.3d 1362 (1966), it is our view that this portion of our opinion is not in harmony with the views of O’Neill, and must be considered as overruled.
O'NEILL v. Mangum 445 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1968
O'NEILL v. Mangum 445 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1968
It is old law that the constitutional right to trial by jury does not extend to petty offenses: , , 16 A.L.R.3d 1362 ; Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 , 8 S.Ct.
Casa Grande Trust Company v. Superior Court 444 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Casa Grande Trust Company v. Superior Court 444 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
16 A.L.R.3d 1362 (1966); Taylor v. Stanford, supra.
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Bland v. Bock 443 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
16 A.L.R.3d 1362 (1966).
Tsipai v. State 442 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Tsipai v. State 442 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
The right to a jury trial should be jealously guarded and preserved by the courts, whether granted by the constitution or statutes.” -47 , , 16 A.L.R.3d 1362 (1966).
Morgan v. Hays 426 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1967
Charboneau v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 422 P.2d 702 Ariz. 1967
Charboneau v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 422 P.2d 702 Ariz. 1967
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 we said a writ of prohibition is proper to prevent an inferior tribunal from acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction which may result in wrong, damage and injustice and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise available.