DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite New PCR Intl. v. ICA, 107 P.3d 923.

89 citing documents.

  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Sec., –83 ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
  • In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Majidi v. Milkwick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Sec., –83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
  • Overfield v. Sungulyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Sec., –83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005); Ariz. R. Prot.
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to M.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).
  • Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).
  • Jaen v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).
  • Shelly W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Nathan L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2005) (noting that "conflicts in the evidence are for the fact-finder to resolve").
  • Jacob G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005)).
  • Jorden B. v. Dcs, L.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Sec., –83 ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
  • Brandon J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Candace G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Demetrice H. v. Dcs, D.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Aaron F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Michael D. v. Dcs, R.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
  • Roseann R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., –82, ¶¶ 13, 16 (App. 2005).
  • Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) ().
  • Chelsea R. v. Dcs, H.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., -82, ¶ 13 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).
  • Georgia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., -83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
  • Elbert H. v. Dcs, B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    We review the juvenile court’s denial of a motion to set aside for an abuse of discretion, Trisha A., 247 Ariz. at 91, ¶ 27, and reverse only if “the juvenile court’s exercise of that discretion was ‘manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons,’” ¶ 15 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2005)).
  • Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., -82, ¶ 13 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).
  • Jimmy F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Shawna N., John N. v. Dcs, H.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., -83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
  • Vincent S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Sec., -82, ¶¶ 13, 16 (App. 2005).
  • Philip W. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    We review the juvenile court’s finding that a parent failed to appear without good cause for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only if “the juvenile court’s exercise of that discretion was ‘manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.’” ¶ 15 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2005)).
  • Melissa T. v. Dcs, P.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005)).
  • Sandra R,, Sergio C. v. Dcs 436 P.3d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶8 This court will affirm the juvenile court’s evidentiary rulings “absent a clear abuse of its discretion and resulting prejudice.” –83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
  • Mark M. v. Dcs, A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Sec., -82, ¶¶ 13, 16 (App. 2005) (citing Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 4).
  • Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -82, ¶¶ 13, 16 (App. 2005) (citations omitted); Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 4 (citing Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • Justin M., Stephanie R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., - 83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (“A trial court has broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence, and we will not disturb its decision absent a clear abuse of its discretion and resulting prejudice.”).
  • Martina M. v. Dcs, A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Breyana M. v. Dcs, J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Patrick G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., ¶ 13 (App. 2005)), because the juvenile court is in the “best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and make appropriate findings,” Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • James A. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    82-83, ¶ 19, , 928-29 (App. 2005).
  • Melissa M. v. Dcs, J.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005).
  • Janice H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Edward S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted)).
  • Anthony W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶ 13 (App. 2005), and the case manager’s testimony is sufficient to uphold the juvenile court’s finding.
  • Stella H. v. Dcs, J.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jerome H. v. Dcs, J.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶ 13 (App. 2005) (reweighing evidence is not the function of this court).
  • Jessica M. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶ 13 (App. 2005) (reweighing evidence is not the function of this court).
  • Tovah K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., –82, ¶ 13 (App. 2005).
  • Nicole M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., 5 NICOLE M. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court -83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Alice M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015) (applying harmless error analysis to the juvenile court’s error) (citation omitted).
  • Andres M., Robert M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., –82, ¶ 13 (App. 2005); In re Maricopa Cty.
  • Traci E. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kayoma S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶ 13 (App. 2005), and Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.