Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin, 69 P.3d 1000.

36 citing documents.

Brown v. Dembow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brown v. Dembow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Alsarraf v. Bernini 421 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Alsarraf v. Bernini 421 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Romley v. Martin , , ¶ 4, aff'd
Diaz v. Bernini 419 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Diaz v. Bernini 419 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Romley v. Martin , , ¶ 4, aff'd
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Romley v. Martin , , 47, ¶ 4, aff'd , , special action is a criminal defendant's only avenue for review of a denial of a motion to redetermine probable cause.
State v. Hon ainley/head Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon ainley/head Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 4, (“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”), aff’d on other grounds, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 4 , (“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”), affd
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
¶¶ 4–5, (accepting special action review of in-limine rulings that prior convictions could not be used for impeachment), aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona 287 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Elizabeth W. v. State of Arizona 287 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”), aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”), aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State v. Simon 270 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Simon 270 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
2 questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.”), aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003); see also A.R.S.
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
for the proposition that A’izona Rule of Evidence 609(a) does not permit impeachment with prior convictions sentenced under AR.S.
Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry No Travmed USA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry No Travmed USA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
aff’d, P.3d 1000 (2003).
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
aff'd, , (accepting jurisdiction of state’s petition to determine whether defendant may be impeached with prior felony convictions, finding state had no plain, speedy or adequate remedy by appeal).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
("Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.’’), aff'd
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
In Re Nelson 86 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2004
In Re Nelson 86 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by