Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Robinson, 735 P.2d 801.

203 citing documents.

State v. Cavaness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cavaness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Additionally, we may affirm the ruling “on any basis supported by the record.”
State v. Karban Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Karban Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Shivers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Shivers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
However, because “[w]e may affirm on any basis supported by the record,” we conclude that the court correctly dismissed Terterova’s negligence claim because Defendants did not owe her a duty to save her from her own criminal conduct.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
However, we may also “affirm a trial court on any basis supported by the record,” , ( , ), and there is an independent and more fundamental basis on which to do so: the agreement falls outside the bounds of Morris 4 I. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT A COMPLIANT MORRIS AGREEMENT AND PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR CLAIMS AGAINST THE NPIs.
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Agreeing with the state, the respondent judge found the statute “usurps the [Supreme] Court‟s rulemaking authority and violates the separation of powers doctrine.” The respondent reasoned the statute does not supplement the rule but, and State ex rel.
SOLIMENO v. Yonan 227 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SOLIMENO v. Yonan 227 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(holding that an appellate court may affirm a trial court on any basis supported by the record).
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
[was] consistent with receiving medical care’ ”; and (2) whether it was “ ‘reasonable for the physician to rely on the information in diagnosis or treatment.’” , -21 , -22 (1983).
State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
(reviewing evidentiary rulings).
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Moreover, “[w]e may affirm on any basis supported by the record.”
State v. Moore 56 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Moore 56 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moreover, telephonic testimony seriously impinges on a defendant’s ability to “confront and cross-examine his accusers face-to-face.”
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-02 , -12 (1987) (hearsay statements supported by “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” when the statements made by a five-year-old were spontaneous, consistent, and corroborated by both physical evidence and behavorial changes).
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996