Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Tracy v. Superior Court, 810 P.2d 1030.
- WAGNER v. ARIZONA MUNICIPAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
WAGNER v. ARIZONA MUNICIPAL
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
encompass[ing] items that were not specifically enumerated.’” Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty., ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶ 29 (2025) ().
- Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. 2025
-
Sanchez v. Maricopa County
Ariz. 2025
encompass[ing] items that were not specifically enumerated.” see A.R.S.
- Discount Tire v. Ica Labor Dpt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Discount Tire v. Ica Labor Dpt
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
First, the word “includes” is “most often a term of enlargement, rather than limitation, and a court may find that it encompasses items that were not specifically enumerated.”
- state/des v. Torres 431 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- state/des v. Torres 431 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- johnson/psychological v. Hon. o'connor/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Johnson v. O'Connor 327 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
johnson/psychological v. Hon. o'connor/state
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The court recognized that the Arizona Supreme Court had held in Tracy v. Superior Court (Navajo Nation), –44, –51 (1991), that matters of professional privileges should be resolved in the state requesting the summons, not in the state issuing the summons.
-
Johnson v. O'Connor
327 P.3d 218
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The court recognized that the Arizona Supreme Court had held in Tracy v. Superior Court (Navajo Nation), -44 , -51 (1991), that matters of professional privileges should be resolved in the state requesting the summons, not in the state issuing the summons.
- Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- Astorga v. Wing 118 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-
Astorga v. Wing
118 P.3d 1103
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Recognition of Tribal Court Civil Judgments, Rule 5; Tracy v. Su/perior Court, , (“Arizona courts have consistently afforded full recognition to tribal court proceedings.”); In re Lynch’s Estate, , (Navajo tribal court proceedings should be treated the same as court proceedings in a foreign state or country.); Canby, Willi
- State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
- Commitment of Jerry Michael Conn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- In Re the Commitment of Conn 85 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
-
In Re the Commitment of Conn
85 P.3d 474
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
There is no equivalent privilege to refuse to testify to avoid civil liability____ Thus, there is no proscription against using compelled immunized testimony against a witness in a civil proceeding.” , (citations omitted).
-
Commitment of Jerry Michael Conn
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Thus, there is no proscription against using compelled immunized testimony against a witness in a civil proceeding.” (citations omitted).
- Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- State v. Zaman 984 P.2d 528 Ariz. 1999
- Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 837 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1992
-
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County
837 P.2d 139
Ariz. 1992
(“where there is no contrary textual or legislative expression of intent on a particular application, we must apply the statute in such a manner as will best serve the legislature’s purposes, policies, and goals”); -69 , 224 P.
- Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1992
- Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1992
- Dietz v. General Electric Co. 821 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1991
-
Dietz v. General Electric Co.
821 P.2d 166
Ariz. 1991
Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc., , Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
- Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers 815 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1991
-
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers
815 P.2d 900
Ariz. 1991
29-30 n. 6, , 1036-37 n. 6 (1991).