DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Neil, 425 P.2d 842.

70 citing documents.

  • Bhavnani v. Mukherjee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Bhavnani v. Mukherjee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶10 “The right to a fair trial is a foundation stone upon which [Arizona’s] present judicial system rests.” In re Estate of Long, 229 Ariz. at 464, ¶ 23 ().
  • State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶29 The right to a fair trial necessarily includes “the right to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.”
  • State v. Redondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Redondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶9 The right to a fair trial necessarily includes “the right to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.”
  • State v. Wood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Wood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶8 A fair trial includes the right to a judge “who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.”
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Distinguished State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    (Bernstein, C.J., dissenting) (noting “[t]here is a critical distinction between a new trial and a mistrial,” because latter entails no judgment or sentence having been rendered by court).
  • In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Necessarily included in this right is the right to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.”
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Denise S., Carlos C. v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Denise S., Carlos C. v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    See also State v. Neil, 102 Ariz. 110, 112, (right to peremptory change of judge derives from right to fair trial); JV-132324, 181 Ariz. at 342, 890 P.2d at 637 (right to peremptory change of judge is important procedural right).
  • Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    Greenlee County Justice Court, 157 Ariz. at 273 , 756 P.2d at 942 ; -13 , -45 (1967) (filing of notice of change of judge required trial court to transfer case to another judge); , (litigant has peremptory right to disqualify judge, and if notice is timely, ease must be transferred to another judge
  • Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    As we pointed out there, , in which our supreme court held that, on retrial after reversal of a forgery conviction, the defendant’s oral affidavit of bias and prejudice filed against the same judge who had presided over the first trial was an untimely request for a peremptory change of judge and that, instead, the defenda
  • Valenzuela v. Brown 919 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Valenzuela v. Brown 919 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    in which our supreme court held that a change of judge after a trial court’s reversal on appeal had to be based on cause.
  • Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    258, vacated on other grounds, , stating: “The granting or refusal of a temporary injunction does not constitute the law of the case or an adjudication on the merits, and the issues must be tried to the same extent as though no temporary injunction had been applied for.” Id.
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    476, 479-80 , 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965)
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
    We first consider each incident separately but note preliminarily that “[n]ecessarily included in [the right to a fair trial] is the right to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.”
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    ed to a change of judge if a fair and impartial hearing or trial cannot be had by reason of the interest or prejudice of the assigned judge.” We have stated that the right to a fair trial is the “foundation stone upon which our present judicial system rests,” and that there is an indispensable right to trial presided over by a judge who is “impartial and free of bias or prejudice.”
  • Fiveash v. Superior Court of Arizona 752 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Fiveash v. Superior Court of Arizona 752 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    1258 , vacated on other grounds
  • State v. Rossi 741 P.2d 1223 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Rossi 741 P.2d 1223 Ariz. 1987
    Necessarily included in this right is the right to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.”
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
    A defendant has a “right to trial presided over by a judge who is ‘impartial and free of bias or prejudice.’ ” , ( , ).
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Brown 602 P.2d 478 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Brown 602 P.2d 478 Ariz. 1979
    ed to a change of judge if a fair and impartial hearing or trial cannot be had by reason of the interest or prejudice of the assigned judge.” We have stated that the right to a fair trial is the “foundation stone upon which our present judicial system rests,” and that there is an indispensable right to trial presided over by a judge who is “impartial and free of bias or prejudice.”
  • State v. Barnes 575 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Barnes 575 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978