Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marvin Johnson, PC v. Myers, 907 P.2d 67.

87 citing documents.

State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Huerta v. Nelson 213 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Huerta v. Nelson 213 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
v. Myers, , ("[T]here is no probate court apart from the superior court and no subject matter jurisdictional bar to the ability of a superior court judge to hear both a probate matter and a civil action connected with it.’’).
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
v. Myers, 101, (prior usage of word “jurisdiction” by supreme court and court of appeals was “inexact”); (“[T]here have been instances where appellate tribunals have used
State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
v. Myers, , (prior usage of *518 word “jurisdiction” by supreme court and court of appeals was “inexact”); , (“[TJhere have been instances where appellate tribunals have used the word ‘jurisdiction’ when, in reality, they m
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
We begin with the premise that “there is no probate court apart from the superior court.” Marvin Johnson, P.C., v. Myers
In Re Estate of Friedman 177 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Friedman 177 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Burk v. State 156 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Burk v. State 156 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
v. Myers, -02 , -71 (1995) (noting use of term "jurisdiction” to refer to scope of probate proceedings should not be confused with subject-matter jurisdiction).
Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
v. Myers, see also Ariz. Const. art. VI, §§ 14, 15; A.R.S.
Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp. 3 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp. 3 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
v. Myers, , (noting the imprecise use of the term “jurisdiction” in probate proceedings to mean the scope of the proceeding rather than subject matter jurisdiction).
Boydston v. Strole Development Co. 969 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1998
Boydston v. Strole Development Co. 969 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1998
Van Emmerik v. Colosi 972 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Van Emmerik v. Colosi 972 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hill v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Lerette v. Adams 925 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lerette v. Adams 925 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
v. Myers, , that is separated into divisions by county.
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 921 P.2d 21 Ariz. 1996
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 921 P.2d 21 Ariz. 1996
State v. Marks 920 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Marks 920 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996