Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Moreno v. Jones, 139 P.3d 612.

59 citing documents.

State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.”
In the Matter of Carly Van Dox Ariz. 2007
In Re Non-Member of State Bar, Van Dox 152 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2007
In the Matter of Carly Van Dox Ariz. 2007
¶ 20, (citing O’Hern v. Bowling, 109 Ariz. 90, 92-93, -53 (1973)).3 Deference to a hearing 3 One court explained that, “[t]o be clearly erroneous, a decision must [be] more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must .
In Re Non-Member of State Bar, Van Dox 152 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2007
¶ 20 , (citing O’-93 , -53 (1973)).
Lubin v. Thomas 144 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2006
Lubin v. Thomas 144 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2006
¶13 “We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.” ___ ¶ 23