Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 198 P.3d 1203.

76 citing documents.

Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 10 , Michael J., Jr. v. Michael J., Sr., ¶ 7
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 10, Michael J., Jr. v. Michael J., Sr., ¶ 7
Michael M., Sr. v. Dcs, M.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Michael M., Sr. v. Dcs, M.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 363 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 363 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Victoria F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Victoria F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Raquel D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Raquel D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Navajo Nation v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 284 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Navajo Nation v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 284 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Yvonne L. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 258 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yvonne L. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 258 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000076 244 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000076 244 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Sec., ¶ 21 , ("Because the legislature is empowered to set burdens of proof as a matter of substantive law, a valid statute specifying the burden of proof prevails over common law or court rules adopting a different standard.") *1059 (citation omitted); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 220 Ariz.
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Sec., , 336 ¶21, Hansen, 215 Ariz. at 289 ¶ 9, 160 P.3d at 168 (“[W]hen a statute and a rule conflict, we traditionally inquire into whether the matter regulated can be characterized as substantive or procedural, the former being the legislature’s prerogative and the latter the province of this C
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sec., ¶ 21 , (“Because the legislature is empowered to set burdens of proof as a matter of substantive law, a valid statute specifying the burden of proof prevails over common law or court rules adopting a different standard.”).