DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 921 P.2d 21.

94 citing documents.

  • Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    (court more likely to accept special action jurisdiction “in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law”); (special action review appropriate for “testing rulings dealing with a peremptory challenge of a judge”).
  • 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
    -24 , -24 (1996); Brush Wellman, ¶ 5
  • 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
    (holding that the denial of a peremptory right to a change of judge must be pursued, if at all, by special action relief and is waived for purposes of appeal).
  • Arpaio v. Baca 177 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Arpaio v. Baca 177 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    “the word ‘jurisdiction’ means different things in different contexts.
  • 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
    Co., ¶9 , ("We have cautioned against the use of the word 'jurisdiction' beyond its core meaning.”); , (stating use of word "jurisdiction” to mean subject-matter jurisdiction distinct from use of word to mean authority of court to take particular action); Marvin Johnson, P.C.
  • Smith v. Mitchell 148 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Smith v. Mitchell 148 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    Perez v. O’Neil, ¶ 11 , , (appellate review of denial of notice of change of judge filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 42(f)(1) must be obtained by special action).
  • Denise S., Carlos C. v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Denise S., Carlos C. v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    Because the denial of a motion for change of judge can only be challenged via special action, , and because the meaning and application of Rule 42(f)(1)(E) is a question of statewide importance to the judiciary and the litigants who come before it in civil matters, Brush Wellman, ¶ 5 , we previously accepted jurisdict
  • Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    Perez v. O’Neil, ¶¶ 11-12 , -58 (App.2003); , (appellate review of denial of notice of peremptory change of judge in civil case must be obtained by special action because “an appeal makes no sense”).
  • Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    (appellate review of denial of notice of change of judge filed pur.suant to Rule 42(f)(1), Ariz. R. Civ.
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    “The administration of justice, already under great weight, needs no further burden.” , (trial court’s failure to honor notice of change of judge does not deprive court of jurisdiction).
  • 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
    -23 , -23 (1996) (holding that, despite prior use of the term “jurisdiction,” filing notice of change of judge did not extinguish subject matter jurisdiction; authority to try case different from power to entertain action of particular subject matter); Marvin Johnson, P.C.
  • Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    Valenzuela, 186 Ariz. at 107 , 919 P.2d at 1378
  • Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (The term "jurisdiction” means different things in different contexts).
  • Hill v. City of Phoenix 975 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1999
  • Hill v. City of Phoenix 975 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1999
    -23 , -23 (1996), we cautioned against the imprecise usage of the concept of jurisdiction.
  • Boydston v. Strole Development Co. 969 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1998
  • Boydston v. Strole Development Co. 969 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1998
  • Matter of Hirschfeld 960 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1998
  • Matter of Hirschfeld 960 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    However, as our supreme court has recently stated, in cases “where an appeal makes no sense,” “a party must seek relief by special action,” to be entitled to relief from an error involving “a rule-driven ‘mat *148 ter of grace.’ ”
  • Dobrota v. Free Serbian Orthodox Church 952 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Dobrota v. Free Serbian Orthodox Church 952 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Here we use jurisdiction to mean a court’s “authority to do a particular thing.”
  • Williams v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Williams v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    3 We take jurisdiction because (1) we find plain error; (2) a special action provides the only means to seek relief from an erroneous denial of a Notice of Change of Judge, -24 , -24 (1996); and (3) this special action presents a question of first impression concerning the recently amended waiver provisions of Rule 42(f).
  • Hill v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 935 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 935 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    The supreme court then vacated our decision on grounds that “rulings by noticed judges on the propriety of the notice are reviewable only by way of special action relief.”