Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Medina, 975 P.2d 94.

119 citing documents.

Robinson v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
The party must do so by “set[ting] forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prov[ing] by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11 (1999).
JARVIS v. ASSA ABLOY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
JARVIS v. ASSA ABLOY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
Ctr., ¶ 29 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 11 (1999)).
Hanger v. Hanger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Hanger v. Hanger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
But a party challenging a judge’s participation as biased “must set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11 (1999).
Chavez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Chavez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 11 (1999) (quotation omitted).
Olesen v. daniel/burge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Olesen v. daniel/burge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A party challenging a judge’s impartiality must overcome the presumption that judges are “free of bias and prejudice,” and must “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced,” ¶ 11 (1999).
Leslie v. Leslie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Leslie v. Leslie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A party challenging a judge’s impartiality must overcome the presumption that judges are “free of bias and prejudice,” and must “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced,” ¶ 11 (1999).
Rulnick v. Rulnick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Rulnick v. Rulnick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
To prove bias, Father needed to “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove [it] by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 11 (1999).
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“To rebut this 8 STATE v. WILSON Decision of the Court presumption, a party must set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11 (1999).
McGuire-lally v. Lally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
McGuire-lally v. Lally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Father needed to “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove [it] 5 MCGUIRE-LALLY v. LALLY Decision of the Court by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 11 (1999).
Cordero v. Hazlitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cordero v. Hazlitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
To prove this, Father must “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11 (1999).
Bennett v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Bennett v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
8 BENNETT v. DAVIS Decision of the Court by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11 (1999) (citations omitted).
Meyer v. Petroff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Meyer v. Petroff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
To prove this, Father must “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11 (1999).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 11 (1999) (quotation omitted).
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶17 “[A] trial judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice.” ¶ 11 (1999) (citation omitted).
Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 22 (2003) ( ¶ 11 (1999)) (“A party challenging a trial judge’s impartiality must overcome a strong presumption that trial judges are ‘free of bias and prejudice.’”).
Russell v. Sahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Russell v. Sahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A party challenging a judge’s impartiality must overcome the presumption that judges are “free of bias and prejudice,” and must “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11 (1999).
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
To overcome this presumption, a party requesting recusal must “set forth a specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge is biased or prejudiced.” ¶ 11 (1999).
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 28 (2008) ( ¶ 46 (2005), ¶ 18 (1999)).
Helal v. Winski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Helal v. Winski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
¶ 59, – 15, ¶ 43, –05 (1999).
State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010