Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima, 412 P.2d 463.

108 citing documents.

Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Ct., (“Of course, there is expense and delay in being put to a trial and then an appeal.
Total Renal v. Hon moskowitz/brackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Total Renal v. Hon moskowitz/brackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(“Of course, there is expense and delay in being put to a trial and then an appeal.
Peterson v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Peterson v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Caruso v. Superior Court (Ryle)
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs Ariz. 2020
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs Ariz. 2020
See, (“A remedy does not become inadequate merely because more time would transpire by pursuing a conventional action.”).
Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/mark R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dep't of Child Safety v. Stocking-Tate 446 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dep't of Child Safety v. Stocking-Tate 446 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Glenn H. , 244 Ariz. at 407, ¶ 7 , 419 P.3d at 570 (citing Caruso v. Superior Court , , 170, ).
Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/mark R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Invoking “[s]pecial action jurisdiction is also appropriate to prevent the superior court from acting without jurisdiction.” Glenn H., 244 Ariz. at 407, ¶ 7 ().
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner 419 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner 419 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tellez Velazquez v. Hon. myers/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tellez Velazquez v. Hon. myers/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶9 In reviewing a court’s decision on a common-law writ, we restrict our review to “whether the lower court abused its discretion.” (internal quotation omitted).
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa 893 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa 893 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
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
See, , (writ of prohibition appropriate where natural father sought to prevent adoption of his illegitimate son).
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4997 680 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4997 680 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
• For his first argument
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-1182 666 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-1182 666 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Silver v. Rose 661 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Silver v. Rose 661 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
the Arizona Supreme Court held that'“[t]he [juvenile] court has no jurisdiction to enter an order [affecting the care or custody of a child] until it first determines that the child is dependent, neglected, incorrigible or delinquent.” 100 Ariz. at 172 , 412 P.2d at 466 .
Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
where it was held: “To decide whether a lower tribunal has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, we examine the internal validity of the proceeding.
Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale 578 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale 578 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
See Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, , Caruso v. Superior Court, County of Pima, , -66 (1966).
Matter of Appeal in Pima County Etc. 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
Matter of Appeal in Pima County Etc. 575 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1978
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 557 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1976
Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 557 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1976
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-111 543 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-111 543 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
it was held that a parent’s right to his child could only be overcome by a showing of unfitness.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75482 536 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1975
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75482 536 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1975
Kelly v. Perry 531 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1975
Kelly v. Perry 531 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1975
McBeth v. Rose 531 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1975
McBeth v. Rose 531 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1975
This Court, , stated that jurisdiction in the juvenile court does not attach until there hás been an.
Lombardo v. Pollock 521 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Lombardo v. Pollock 521 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Gowland v. Martin 520 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Gowland v. Martin 520 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In re Adoption of Baby Boy, 10 Ariz.App.
Friedman v. Juvenile Court, Division of the Superior Court 509 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973