Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County, 722 P.2d 236.
- Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
Lee v. Superior Court
840 P.2d 296
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
By earlier order, we accepted special action jurisdiction for several reasons: First, the petitioner is without an adequate remedy by appeal, see Ariz.R.P.Special Actions 1(a); , because the matter originated in justice court and was appealed to the superior court.
- Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court
832 P.2d 705
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Actions 1(a); Bechtel v. Rose, In and For Maricopa County, , see also, In re Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-35316, 24 Ariz.App.
- Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court
839 P.2d 446
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The trial court granted the motion to intervene stating in pertinent part: , is that some adult relatives “are invested with a natural and abiding love” for the children in their family.
- State v. Perez 836 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- State v. Perez 836 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
-
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA)
784 P.2d 268
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(citing Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd.
- Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court 765 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court 765 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7135 747 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7135
747 P.2d 633
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
“Permissive intervention is well within the discretion of the trial court, but is nonetheless subject to appellate review.” , (citing Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd.