Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Ross v. Nance, 798 P.2d 1295.
- Paloma v. Srvwua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Paloma v. Srvwua
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(noting that the superior court's judgment on appeal from an administrative hearing is appealable to the court of appeals pursuant to A.R.S.
- SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- Clifton v. Decillis 927 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1996
- Clifton v. Decillis 927 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1996
- State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- State v. Helffrich 846 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
State v. Helffrich
846 P.2d 151
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
and applying the ordinary meaning of words not specially defined.
- State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- State Ex Rel. Romley v. Brown 815 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- State Ex Rel. Romley v. Brown 815 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- State v. Nichols 819 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
- State v. Nichols 819 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
- Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-
Werner v. Prins
812 P.2d 1089
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(section 28-694 does not require relation back of BAC to time of driving to sustain civil license suspension); Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court , (in criminal cases brought pursuant to section 28-692, defendant has right to consult with attorney prior to ta
- State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
-
State v. Garcia
799 P.2d 888
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
We note, however, , recently held that relation back evidence is not required under section 28-694 prior to an administrative suspension because section 28-694 does not contain "at the time of the alleged offense” language.
- State v. Smith 803 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Smith 803 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Isbell v. Miller 797 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Isbell v. Miller 797 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
-
Knapp v. Miller
799 P.2d 868
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
The Arizona Supreme Court recently rejected that argument and construed section 28-694 to permit administrative suspension of a driver’s license when a driver’s BAC at the time of the test is 0.10 or more, “without regard to a projected reading at the time of driving.”