Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mann v. County of Maricopa, 456 P.2d 931.

36 citing documents.

Ball v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ball v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(superior court is part of the judicial branch, not the executive branch; the BOS of Santa Cruz County had no right to control the activities of the Santa Cruz Superior Court) (citation omitted); (judicial branch supervises employees of the judicial department).
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶25 , our supreme court reaffirmed its conclusion that the judiciary “has the power of control of personnel ...
Hounshell v. White 202 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hounshell v. White 202 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 16 The Board contends that our supreme court’s , compels a different result in this case.
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
McDonald v. Campbell 821 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1991
McDonald v. Campbell 821 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1991
McDonald v. Campbell 821 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
McDonald v. Campbell 821 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Maricopa County v. Dann 758 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1988
Maricopa County v. Dann 758 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1988
Broomfield v. Maricopa County, supra
State v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 708 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Pima County Adult Probation Department 708 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Similarly, , the court held that the judicial department must retain the power of control over personnel directly connected with the operation of the courts.
Winter v. Coor 695 P.2d 1094 Ariz. 1985
Winter v. Coor 695 P.2d 1094 Ariz. 1985
Referring to this court’s , the magistrates point out that this court held that the judicial department must retain the power of control over personnel directly connected with the operation of the courts.
Reinhold v. Board of Supervisors 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Reinhold v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NAVAJO CTY. 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Reinhold v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NAVAJO CTY. 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Reinhold v. Board of Supervisors 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hernandez v. Maricopa County 673 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Hernandez v. Maricopa County 673 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In analyzing the scope of these constitutional provisions
Deddens v. Cochise County 546 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1976
Deddens v. Cochise County 546 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1976
we quoted with approval *77 the following language from Smith v. Miller, 153 Colo.
White v. Superior Court 544 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
White v. Superior Court 544 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Broomfield v. Maricopa County 544 P.2d 1080 Ariz. 1975
Broomfield v. Maricopa County 544 P.2d 1080 Ariz. 1975
Holohan v. Mahoney 480 P.2d 351 Ariz. 1971
Holohan v. Mahoney 480 P.2d 351 Ariz. 1971
The ‘personnel’ involved herein contemplates bailiffs, probation officers, court reporters, court administrators, secretaries, and others working directly in connection with the administration of justice.”
Roylston v. Pima County 475 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1970
Birdsall v. Pima County 475 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1970
Birdsall v. Pima County 475 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1970
More recently, , we quoted with approval the following language from Smith v. Miller, 153 Colo.
Roylston v. Pima County 475 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1970
we recognized that: “* * * ‘(1) It is the legislative intention, as expressed in the statute, which the court must ascertain and declare; and (2) it must be assumed that the legislature acted with full knozoledge of relevant constitutional provisions, inherent judicial powers existing, and of pre