Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State, 16 P.3d 757.

61 citing documents.

Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox 565 P.3d 236 Ariz. 2025
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox 565 P.3d 236 Ariz. 2025
¶ 42 (2001); ¶ 10 (App. 2018).
Sierra Club v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Sierra Club v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(recognizing that SRP “is a political subdivision of the state, organized pursuant to article XIII, section 7 of the Arizona Constitution”).
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Morales v. Hon coffey/state 535 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Morales v. Hon coffey/state 535 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Marcie a Redgrave v. Doug Ducey 493 P.3d 878 Ariz. 2021
Marcie a Redgrave v. Doug Ducey 493 P.3d 878 Ariz. 2021
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 27 (2001) (acknowledging that common law immunity principles apply in the absence of statutory direction) (citations omitted).
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein 425 P.3d 230 Ariz. 2018
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein 425 P.3d 230 Ariz. 2018
¶ 9 (2001), but did not otherwise explain its ruling.
In Re R.E. 387 P.3d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Hogue v. City of Phoenix 378 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hogue v. City of Phoenix 378 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 26, (finding that the legislature acted within its constitutional limits in enacting the immunity statute, which “explicitly 7 HOGUE, et al. v. PHOENIX, et al. Opinion of the Court confers qualifie
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 265 n. 5, 689 P.2d at 524 n. 5, has held that police officers retain discretion to arrest medical marijuana users despite proof of their compliance with medical marijuana laws.
Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety 352 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2015
Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety 352 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2015
¶ 13, (describing the legislature’s enactment of the Actions Against Public Entities or Public Employees Act (the “Act”), codified at A.R.S.
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶¶ 20, 26, -64 (2001) (“[W]e consistently have recognized the power of the legislature to retain or confer immunity where appropriate.”); Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., (legislature better positioned to address policy concerns than courts); see al
Lashauna Coleman v. Hon. Johnsen/state Ex Rel. State 330 P.3d 952 Ariz. 2014
Lashauna Coleman v. Hon. Johnsen/state Ex Rel. State 330 P.3d 952 Ariz. 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
P.3d 757 (2001) (3-2 decision); Stone v. Ariz. Highway Comm’n, -93, -13 (1963), P.3d 499 (2009) (same); (describing Act’s histor
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(established axiom that where both general and specific constitutional provisions relate to same subject, specific provision controls).
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
we hold that the legislature did not exceed its authority when it adopted A.R.S.
Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Kohl v. City of Phoenix 160 P.3d 170 Ariz. 2007
Doe v. Arpaio 150 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Doe v. Arpaio 150 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Weatherford Ex Rel. Michael L. v. State 81 P.3d 320 Ariz. 2003
Weatherford Ex Rel. Michael L. v. State 81 P.3d 320 Ariz. 2003
203 ¶ 24, ("We conclude that the immunity clause [of the Arizona Constitution], by authorizing the legislature to direct by law the manner in which suits may be brought against the state, confers upon the legislature a power to control actions against the state that it does not possess with r
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
for the proposition “that changing a standard of proof from negligence to gross negligence for a particular’ subclass of tort victims would violate” the anti-abrogation clause.