Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 418 P.2d 594.

47 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
Newspapers, (“The language of this provision makes plain its purpose to prevent previous restraints upon publication.” (quoting Ex Parte McCormick, 88 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.
Phx Newspapers v. Hon otis/allen 413 P.3d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx Newspapers v. Hon otis/allen 413 P.3d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713 (1931) (“[I]t has been generally, if not universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the [First Amendment] to prevent previous restraints upon publication.”); see also Phoenix Newspapers, (“The words of [Article 2, Section 6, of] the Arizona Constitution are too plain for equivocation.
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ct., (where ban on publication violated the Arizona Constitution, the court did “not reach the further questions presented concerning the application of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution”).
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Courts are public institutions[] [and] [t]he manner in which justice is administered does not have any private aspects.” Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa Cnty.
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co., 11 F.3d 450 , 461-62 (4th *150 Cir.1998) (same); see also Phoenix Newspapers, , (“[T]his Court has recognized that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in the courts.”); cf. Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., , (trial court has inherent authority to sanction miscon
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
at 355, 773 P.2d at 460 (quoting Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court (Thurman), ).
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mountain States, 160 Ariz. at 355-56 , 773 P.2d at 460-61 ; (citing Phoenix Newspapers, , and Phoenix Newspapers, , ).
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
“Indeed, this court has previously given art. 2, § 6 greater scope than the first amendment.” Mountain States, 160 Ariz. at 354 , 773 P.2d at 459 ; see also Phoenix Newspapers, , (“The right of every person [in Arizona] to freely speak, write and publish may not be limited but such a person may be held accountable for an abuse of that right.”); , (acknowledging that, in some circumstances, our constituti
Holt v. Hotham 5 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Holt v. Hotham 5 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
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
Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, -55 , -60 (1989); Phoenix Newspapers
Brooks v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 839 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Brooks v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 839 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cf. State v. Chavez, 123 Ariz 538, (condemnor may not be held in contempt for void order) ( , ).
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Phoenix Newspapers, , see also Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 , 96 S.Ct.
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 773 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1989
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 773 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1989
In Phoenix Newspapers, , 418 P.2d *355 594 (1966), reporters threatened with contempt for violating a trial judge’s “gag” order invoked both state and federal constitutional protections.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT-295003 616 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT-295003 616 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. McLaughlin 611 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1980
State v. McLaughlin 611 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1980
In Phoenix Newspapers, , we held that in a contempt proceeding the contemnor may show that the order appealed from is void or the court was without jurisdiction to enter such order.
State v. Chavez 601 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Chavez 601 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Appellants also argue that the Arizona decision of Phoenix Newspapers, , adopted the same policy as the California court by rejecting a contempt judgment based upon a void court order.
Kelly v. Perry 531 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1975
Kelly v. Perry 531 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1975
Van Baalen v. Superior Court 508 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Van Baalen v. Superior Court 508 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
556 , cf. Ong Hing v. Thurston, supra; Phoenix Newspapers
Phoenix Newspapers Incorporated v. Jennings 490 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1971
Phoenix Newspapers Incorporated v. Jennings 490 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1971
In Thoenix Newspapers, , a newspaper reporter was present at a hearing on an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court.
Modla v. Tribune Publishing Company 480 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Modla v. Tribune Publishing Company 480 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In a special concurring opinion in Phoenix Newspapers, , Justice Bernstein would place the emphasis on the first amendment of the United States Constitution rather than on the common law.
Weiss v. Superior Court of Pima County 472 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Weiss v. Superior Court of Pima County 472 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Schavey v. Roylston 448 P.2d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Schavey v. Roylston 448 P.2d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In the case of Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, etc., , the court struck down a prior restraint on newspaper publication of proceedings in open court.
State v. Spence 430 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Spence 430 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
City of Phoenix v. Fine 420 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
City of Phoenix v. Fine 420 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by