Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Westover v. State, 185 P.2d 315.

38 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
1956) (retrial not barred following mistrial due to illness of defendant); (jeopardy does not attach following mistrial due to judge’s illness); State v. Anderson, 988 A.2d 276, 278, 283-84 (Conn. 2010) (mistrial proper when prosecutor suddenly became seriously ill and unable to continue); People v. Portalatin, 433 N.Y.S.2d 57, 57-58 (Sup.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell 667 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell 667 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1983
shall be prescribed by law,” and cite cases which have interpreted this provision to restrict the powers of the Attorney General to what is found “either expressly or by reasonable intendment in the statutory law.”
State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
Application of Williams, , Westover v. State, 66 Ariz. *284 145
City of Tucson v. Valencia 517 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Tucson v. Valencia 517 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Shaw, 6 Ariz.App.
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
Application of Hitchcock, D.C., 199 F.Supp.
Belcher v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1970
Belcher v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bowman 464 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bowman 464 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1970
State v. Greer 436 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Greer 436 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Acosta 436 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1968
State v. Acosta 436 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1968
State v. Stout 425 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Stout 425 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Burruell 401 P.2d 733 Ariz. 1965
State v. Burruell 401 P.2d 733 Ariz. 1965
Ap *40 plication of Williams
State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965
State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965
State v. Puckett 377 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1963
State v. Puckett 377 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1963
State v. Dowthard 373 P.2d 357 Ariz. 1962
State v. Dowthard 373 P.2d 357 Ariz. 1962
Although the discharge of a jury after the trial has begun without some legal reason will ordinarily operate as a bar to further prosecution, , the defense of former jeopardy is not available to a defendant where a mistrial is granted upon his motion.
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
e other executive offices created by the Constitution, is imbedded in that instrument, but it is equally true that the authority of the legislature to prescribe what the duties and powers of those occupying these offices shall be is imbedded there also, and, this being true, no common-law powers or duties can attach to that office but only those prescribed by statute.” , , where it was said that: “ * * * it is clear that in Arizona the Attorney General has no common-law powers * * *.” In State e
Application of Williams 333 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1958
Application of Williams 333 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1958
in which this court held that a defendant is in jeopardy after a jury has been selected and sworn.
Ridgway v. Superior Court of Yavapai County 245 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1952
Ridgway v. Superior Court of Yavapai County 245 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1952
If he refuses to take appropriate action, the Attorney General, by the direction of the Governor, might initiate prosecutions, , , or appeal may be made to the judge of the superior court who could impanel a grand jury that has the power of indictment to make inquiry.
Lockwood v. Jordan 231 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1951
Lockwood v. Jordan 231 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1951
Frohmiller, State Auditor, v. Hendrix, , , , .