Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Neely v. Rodriguez, 796 P.2d 876.

38 citing documents.

State v. Truvillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 8 (App. 2009) ( (recognizing the "strong Arizona policy against using extraordinary writs as substitutes for appeals")).
Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(the court of appeals “may entertain special action jurisdiction only in matters that it might properly consider in an appeal”).
Total Renal v. Hon moskowitz/brackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Total Renal v. Hon moskowitz/brackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶23 The special-action rules are consistent with long-standing caselaw recognizing that “[s]pecial actions may not be used as a substitute for an appeal.” ¶ 8 (App. 2009) ( (affirming the “strong Arizona policy against using extraordinary writs as substitutes for appeals”)).
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLC 377 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(explaining that this court cannot expand its statutory appellate jurisdiction by using its special action jurisdiction when a party has failed to timely file a notice of appeal).6 The acceptance 6 The parties may have misinterpreted the superior court’s good-faith attempt to preserve an appellate remedy
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
which provides that this court may "entertain special action jurisdiction only in matters that it might properly consider in an appeal.” Id.
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Montgomery 312 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Montgomery 312 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“One of the equitable considerations involved in accepting special action jurisdiction is a petitioner’s showing of a need for speedy relief .
State of Arizona v. Ramon Limon 270 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Ramon Limon 270 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(motion for rehearing did not suspend time limit to appeal from underlying order granting new trial).
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
76 n. 4, , 878 n. 4 (1990) (“ ‘Subject matter jurisdiction’ relates to the constitutional or statutory power of a court to decide a case.”); Chacon, , (“Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.’ ”), quoting Marks v. LaBerge
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
n.4, n.4 (1990) (“‘Subject matter jurisdiction’ relates to the constitutional or statutory 5 power of a court to decide a case.”); Chacon, 555 Ariz. Adv.
Jordan v. Rea 212 P.3d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Jordan v. Rea 212 P.3d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(recognizing the “strong Arizona policy against using extraordinary writs as substitutes for appeals”).
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 7 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 7 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
76 n. 4, , 878 n. 4 (1990); State ex rel.
Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
76 n. 4, , 878 n. 4 (1990), and, therefore, the decision to accept jurisdiction encompasses a variety of determinants.
Marvin Johnson, P.C. v. Superior Court 887 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Marvin Johnson, P.C. v. Superior Court 887 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(court may not, by application of its procedural rules, expand its constitutional or statutory subject matter jurisdiction).