Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Carver, 771 P.2d 1382.

370 citing documents.

Hinton v. Hinton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hinton v. Hinton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“We presume that a judge is impartial, and ‘the party seeking recusal must prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.’” ¶ 14 (2013) ().
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 101 n. 9 (2004) (“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.”) (); ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (issue waived because defendant failed to develop argument in opening brief).
McAdams v. Corizon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
McAdams v. Corizon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Novak v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Novak v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
he could get rid of the lawsuit for his former employer.” ¶9 We presume judges are impartial, and the party seeking disqualification “must prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“[O]pening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.”
Wells Fargo v. Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wells Fargo v. Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[O]pening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.”).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Bare allegations of bias and prejudice, unsupported by factual evidence, are insufficient to overcome the presumption of impartiality and do not require recusal.”
State v. Runnels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Runnels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rockward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rockward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
3 we still address the issues raised in our discretion.
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rose 441 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Rose 441 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
(quoting State v. Carver , , 175, , 1390 (1989) )).
Munguia v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Munguia v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm’n, ¶ 6, n.2 (App. 2007) (holding that unsupported, undeveloped arguments are waived on appeal); (“Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.”).
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 17 (App. 2008) (declining to review for fundamental error where an appellant failed to argue an alleged error was fundamental).
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Normann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Normann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mary Jean M. v. Dcs, E.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mary Jean M. v. Dcs, E.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
ning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellate relies”); see also Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, ¶ 29 (App. 2000) (stating that “issues not clearly raised in appellate briefs are deemed waived”); (“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues rais
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2008) (declining to review for fundamental error when appellant failed to raise claim in trial court and failed on appeal to address whether alleged error was fundamental); (holding that the failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of such claim) (citations omitted).
Fordyce v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fordyce v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
("opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority"; failure to properly argue a claim constitutes abandonment and waiver).
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
on which the appellant relies.”); ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.”) (); ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (issue waived because defendant failed to develop argument in his brief).
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.
Egizzii v. Egizzii Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Egizzii v. Egizzii Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Carver , , 175, , 1390 (1989) (claims not argued on appeal are abandoned and waived).