Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cox Arizona Publications v. Collins, 852 P.2d 1194.

57 citing documents.

Abraham v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. 2026
Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, (citing Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 167 Ariz. at 257).
GOLDWATER v. PHOENIX Ariz. 2026
DISCUSSION ¶23 “Whether the denial of access to public records is wrongful is an issue of law which we review de novo.” Cox Ariz. Publ’ns
Nina Alley v. Pima County, Pima County Attorney's Office, Laura Conover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
In Fisher, in shifting the burden to a public body based on a challenge under open meeting law, we noted that open meeting law cases are “analogous” to public records law cases, both of which may require the public body to demonstrate why “records should not be made public.” 185 Ariz. at 121-22; see, e.g., Cox Ariz. Publ’ns
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
For example, some cases state that courts must review de novo whether the “denial of access to public records is wrongful.” See, e.g., Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, (also providing that “trial court’s finding that a custodian has acted in bad faith, arbitrarily or capriciously will be upheld unless clearly erroneous”).
Jarron Smith v. Town of Marana 524 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Jarron Smith v. Town of Marana 524 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(quoting Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, ).
Karen Fann v. Hon. kemp/american Oversight 515 P.3d 1275 Ariz. 2022
Karen Fann v. Hon. kemp/american Oversight 515 P.3d 1275 Ariz. 2022
Co., ¶ 9 (1998) (quoting Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, ).
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american 505 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american 505 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Johnson v. Queen creek/acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson v. Queen creek/acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶11 As to the second step, the party opposing disclosure bears the burden “to overcome the legal presumption favoring disclosure.” Cox Ariz. Publ’ns
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 7 (2007); Cox Arizona Publ’ns
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
McKee v. Peoria Unified School District 338 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McKee v. Peoria Unified School District 338 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
217 Ariz. at 545, ¶ 43, 177 P.3d at 287 (quoting Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, see also id.
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 267 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 267 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 27 We are guided in our resolution of this dispute by our supreme court’s decision in Cox Ariz. Publ’ns
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, , Bohn v. Custodian of Records of the Tucson Police Dep’t, ¶ 7
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, , Bolm v. Custodian of Records of the Tucson Police Dep’t, ¶ 7
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 165 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 165 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶25 Because we review the court’s decision for abuse of discretion, Cox Ariz. Publ’ , we must uphold its findings unless they are clearly erroneous
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Cox Ariz. Publ’ , , 1198 (1993).
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 156 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, , , 1198 (1998) (“Whether the denial of access to public records is wrongful is an issue of law which we review de novo.”); see *304 also Ariz. Bd.
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See Cox Arizona Publications, , (“Whether the denial of access to public records is wrongful is an issue of law which we review de novo.”); see also Ariz. R.P.
London v. Broderick 80 P.3d 769 Ariz. 2003
London v. Broderick 80 P.3d 769 Ariz. 2003
In addition, MCAPD asserted a systemic interest in preventing disclosure of investigations that have not been completed, in part _________________________ Collins
A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Department 42 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Department 42 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan 35 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan 35 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See Cox of Ariz. Publ’ , , 1197 (1993); KPNX Broad., 191 Ariz. at 300 , 955 P.2d at 537 (“The State has the burden of overcoming ‘the legal presumption favoring disclosure.’” (quoting Collins, 175 Ariz. at 14 , 852 P.2d at 1198 )).
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
The [government] has the burden of overcoming “the legal presumption favoring disclosure.” Cox Arizona Publications, , ( , ).
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 955 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1998
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 955 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1998
The State has the burden of overcoming “the legal presumption favoring disclosure.” Cox Arizona Publications, , ( , ).
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 937 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 937 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
1198 (1993); Star Publishing Co. v. Pima County Attorney’s Office
Kpnx-Tv v. Superior Ct. in & for Cty. of Yuma 905 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995