DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re JULIO L, 3 P.3d 383.

32 citing documents.

  • In Re Delinquency of B.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • In Re Delinquency of B.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    of the same general nature as fighting or violence or conduct liable to provoke that response in others and thus to threaten the continuation of some event, function, or activity,” causing (2) the victim’s peace to be “indeed disturbed.” –4, ¶¶ 8, 11 (2000).
  • Escobedo v. Banderas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Escobedo v. Banderas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
  • In Re Riley A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • In Re Riley A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    361, ¶¶ 5, 8 (App. 2017); –3, ¶ 6 (2000).
  • Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    –3, ¶ 6 (2000); ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
  • State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    § 13-2904 may be committed against a specific person or a neighborhood.3 -3, ¶¶ 1, 8, -85 (2000).
  • State v. Krentiras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Krentiras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 8, (“[A]n objective standard, in lieu of proof regarding the effect on a specific person, can be used when a defendant is charged with making noise that disturbed the peace of a neighborhood.”).
  • In Re Nickolas S. 226 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Nickolas S. 226 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    § 15-507 on non-constitutional grounds and reversing a delinquency conviction, despite the juvenile’s “brazen impudence and gratuitous vulgarity,” because he did not personally “attack,” “injure,” “disparage,” “revile,” or “denounce” the teacher’s aide), and 4, ¶¶ 3, 13 , 386 (2000) (reversing disorderly conduct delinquency conviction where, in arguing with principal, juvenile said “F— you,” and kicked over a chair; the supreme court stated, “we must keep in mind the differences between civil an
  • In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the adjudication.” ¶ 7 , (-3, ¶ 6 , -85 (2000)).
  • State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    First, when a defendant is charged with disorderly conduct for disturbing the peace of a particular person, the state is required to prove that the defendant knowingly disturbed the victim’s peace, or that the defendant intended to do so.1
  • Bilke v. State 80 P.3d 269 Ariz. 2003
  • Bilke v. State 80 P.3d 269 Ariz. 2003
    See, ¶ 11, (finding that the term “seriously disruptive” should be interpreted in light of the preceding specific categories of “fighting” and “violent” behavior); Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, -99, -11 (1995) (finding that guided river trips
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    As the state points out, these cases generally hold that § 13-1802 creates “a single crime of ‘theft,’ combining or merging the common law crimes of larceny, fraud, embezzlement, obtaining money by false pretenses, and other similar offenses.” see also State v. Wolter, 197 Ariz. 1 1993 Ariz. Sess.
  • Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    Under ejusdem generis, when a general term follows specific terms, “the general term is interpreted as of the same class or type as the specific terms.” ¶ 11
  • In Re John M. 36 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • In Re John M. 36 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001