Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sherrill v. Department of Transportation, 799 P.2d 836.

40 citing documents.

Diaz v. Hon. bernini/state/tucson City Prosecutor 435 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2019
Diaz v. Hon. bernini/state/tucson City Prosecutor 435 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2019
The purpose of § 28-1321 is to “remove from Arizona highways those drivers who may be a menace to themselves and others because of intoxication.” ¶ 13 (2010) (quoting Sherrill v. Dep’t of Transp., ).
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
In Re Mh2011-000914 275 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Mh2011-000914 275 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(citing Sherrill v. Dep’t of Transp., , In re MH 92-020, , ).
Carrillo v. Houser 232 P.3d 1245 Ariz. 2010
Carrillo v. Houser 232 P.3d 1245 Ariz. 2010
The key purpose of the implied consent law “is to remove from Arizona highways those drivers who may be a menace to themselves and others because of intoxication.” Sherrill v. Dep’t of Transp., 165 Ariz. 495, 498
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
-98 , -39 (1990); Owen, 170 Ariz. at 513 , 826 P.2d at 810 .
Pinedo v. Arizona Department of Transportation 23 P.3d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Pinedo v. Arizona Department of Transportation 23 P.3d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
that generally “[t]he civil suspension proceeding for refusing to submit to the test is separate from and unrelated to the criminal prosecution for DUI.” And, , this court observed that in a license suspension proceed
State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
*613 ¶ 14 The dissent also derives from the “consent aspect” of the implied consent law a legislative intent to assure uncooperative suspects that no physical force would be used
Koller v. Arizona Department of Transportation 988 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Koller v. Arizona Department of Transportation 988 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Caretto v. Arizona Department of Transportation 965 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Caretto v. Arizona Department of Transportation 965 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Ricard v. Arizona Department of Transportation 931 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ricard v. Arizona Department of Transportation 931 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marzolf v. Superior Court 912 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Marzolf v. Superior Court 912 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
the Arizona Supreme Court, in referring to the legislative history of a license suspension under AR.S.
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person 889 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1995
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person 889 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1995
We will occasionally accept a moot case for decision where the issue presented is capable of repetition but evades review, , especially if it has statewide importance.
Harris v. Schmitt 885 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Harris v. Schmitt 885 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Valenzuela v. Cowan 877 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Valenzuela v. Cowan 877 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
§ 28-695; (2) it was used solely to determine whether reasonable grounds existed to believe that Valenzuela was driving under the influence; (3) this was not a , 2 situation; and (4) AR.S.
Aakhus v. Hammock 859 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Aakhus v. Hammock 859 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Following a hearing on the proposed suspension, the MVD hearing officer concluded that even though the State had used the deficient sample to cite Aakhus for driving with a BAC of 0.10% or more, , did not estop the State from suspending Aakhus’ license for failure to complete the test.
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Distinguished State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(civil suspension proceeding is separate from and unrelated to criminal prosecution).
Schade v. Department of Transportation 857 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Schade v. Department of Transportation 857 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
see also Minutes of the Committee on Judiciary, Arizona Senate, April 7,1987, H.B.
Owen v. Creedon 826 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Owen v. Creedon 826 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
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
Specifically, , in which our supreme court, citing portions of the minutes of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, stated that the “sanction” of § 28-691 was to “assure that licenses of dangerous drivers are revoked quickly, and to increase the certainty that a drunk driver receives a penalty even if th
Ciulla v. MILLER, EX REL. HWY. DEPT., MVD 821 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Ciulla v. MILLER, EX REL. HWY. DEPT., MVD 821 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Appellees argue that this appeal is moot because appellant's license suspension has expired