Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson, 945 P.2d 1251.

41 citing documents.

Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State v. Ping Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Ping Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(simple assault-domestic violence is not a jury-trial offense).
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
McDougall v. Strohson , , 125, , 1256 (1997) ("[W]e have never determined jury eligibility based upon an analysis of the individual defendant before the court.").
SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
BUCCELLATO v. Morgan 203 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
BUCCELLATO v. Morgan 203 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(quoting State v. Strohson (Cantrell), , ).
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 182 P.3d 1166 Ariz. 2008
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 182 P.3d 1166 Ariz. 2008
McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell), , (observing that the legislature "codified the Rothweiler rule requiring jury trials ...
Fushek v. State 183 P.3d 536 Ariz. 2008
Fushek v. State 183 P.3d 536 Ariz. 2008
McDougall v. Strohson, 190 Ariz. 120, 125, ).
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell), , (citation omitted).
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell), , 945 * (“[T]he issue of entitlement to a jury trial is an issue properly brought via special action.”) (citing Spitz v. Phoenix Mun.
Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
- 27, -58 (1997); cf. State ex rel.
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Municipal Court (Cantrell), , 121 n. 1, , 1252 n. 1 (1997).
Urs v. Maricopa County Attorney's Office 31 P.3d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Urs v. Maricopa County Attorney's Office 31 P.3d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell)
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
the defendant was charged with misdemeanor assault upon a sixteen-year-old victim, which was designated a “domestic violence offense.” Our supreme court noted that it had never extended jury status to misdemeanor assault cases, even where multiple counts could expose a defendant to more than si
Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell), , -40
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell), -22 , -53 (1997) (Arizona Constitution provides greater access to jury trials than is required by the federal constitution).
Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Myers v. Reeb 947 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Myers v. Reeb 947 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997