Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Korzuch, 920 P.2d 312.

47 citing documents.

State v. Campo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Veach v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Veach v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Neko Anthony Wilson v. Hon. higgins/state 491 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2021
Neko Anthony Wilson v. Hon. higgins/state 491 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2021
Rather, probationers possess “reduced liberty interests.” Alfaro, 127 Ariz. at 579 (noting that probationers possess “conditional liberty properly dependent on the observance of special (probation) restrictions”).
Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
we should resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds in all cases where it is possible and prudent to do so.” see also In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, (“Courts should decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible, avoiding resolution of constitutional issues, when other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the cons
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Because the jurisdictional issue is dispositive, this court expresses no opinion on those constitutional issues.3 (cases should be resolved on non-constitutional grounds whenever “it is possible and prudent to do so”); Progressive Specialty Ins.
In Re: v. Cortez 453 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re: v. Cortez 453 P.3d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[W]e should resolve cases on non- constitutional grounds in all cases where it is possible and prudent to do so.”).
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
As our supreme court has observed, “[W]e should resolve cases on non- constitutional grounds in all cases where it is possible and prudent to do so.”
State v. Mixton 447 P.3d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Turner 372 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Turner 372 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶13 Turner next argues the superior court unconstitutionally revoked his probation because he had no notice that when his probation was extended, all the original conditions remained in place, including those unrelated to restitution.
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re Nickolas S. 245 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2011
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Korzuch, 186 Ariz. 190, 192
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
‘cash only’ bond.” ¶6 “Courts should decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible, avoiding resolution of constitutional issues, when other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions.” In re United States Currency of $315,900.00, (“In general, .
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Gaffney 8 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Gaffney 8 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Alton D. 970 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Alton D. 970 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Action No. J-169, , see Rule 10.1, Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court (court may modify any condition which it has imposed); , (applying due process protections to criminal probation modifications).
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Rogers 924 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1996
State v. Rogers 924 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1996