Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Leon G., 59 P.3d 779.

40 citing documents.

State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 9 (2002) (citing cases).
State v. Bierbrodt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 7 STATE v. BIERBRODT Decision of the Court 15 (2002).
In Re: Ms2020-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In Re: Ms2020-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶11 “To civilly commit an individual under the [Sexually Violent Persons Act], the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual is [a sexually violent person].” ¶ 23 (2002); A.R.S.
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state 487 P.3d 256 Ariz. 2021
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state 487 P.3d 256 Ariz. 2021
§§ 36-3701 to -3717; ¶ 10 n.4 (2002).
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
¶ 2 n.1 (2002) (“Generally, this court will not examine waived or moot questions” but will do so “for issues that are of great public importance or likely to reoccur”); (“When the problem which has, due to supervening events, become moot is one of considerable publ
In Re Fredrick B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Fredrick B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 36-3714(A)–(C); ¶ 14 (2002).
Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
n.1, ¶ 2 (2002) (noting exception to general rule of waiver when issue raised is of great public importance and likely to reoccur.)
In Re Ms2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Ms2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 36-3714(C); ¶ 27 (2002) (construing “likely” to mean “highly probable” in the context of the SVP act).
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
§ 36-3701(7)(b); see also Leon G., ¶ 10
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Cofield 107 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Cofield 107 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
§ 36-3705; ¶ 12 , (“If the judge determines that probable cause exists, the judge must order the person to be detained in a licensed facility under the supervision of the superintendent of the Arizona State Hospital and must order an evaluation of the person at the county’s expense.”).
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. County of Pima 86 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2004
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. County of Pima 86 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2004
n.1, ¶ 2, n.1 (2002) (“Generally, this court will not examine waived or moot questions.
In Re the Commitment of Conn 85 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In Re the Commitment of Conn 85 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
2988, 2994 , 92 L.Ed.2d 296, 307 (1986); n. 1 , n. 1 (2002); State ex rel.
Commitment of Jerry Michael Conn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413, 122 S. Ct. 867, 870, 151 L. Ed. 2d 856, 862 (2002); Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 260, 121 S. Ct. 727, 733, 148 L. Ed. 2d 734, 745 (2001); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 369, 117 S. Ct. 2072, 2085, 138 L. Ed. 2d 501, 519 (1997); Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 374, 106 S. Ct. 2988, 2994, 92 L. Ed. 2d 296, 307 (1986); n.1, n.1 (2002); State ex rel.
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
In Detention of Stephen H. 77 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Detention of Stephen H. 77 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 6 In , an opinion filed subsequent to Judge Fields’s decision and subsequent to the briefing in this appeal, our supreme court held that Arizona’s SVP Act comports with the requirements of substantive due process outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 , 117 S.Ct
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
“We review the validity of a statute de novo and, if possible, construe it so as to uphold its constitutionality.”
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
In Re the Detention of Wilber W. 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. 2003
In Re the Detention of Wilber W. 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. 2003
¶ 1 We granted review to consider the opinion of the Court of Appeals in light of our decision in

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by