Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brown v. Greer, 141 P. 841.

51 citing documents.

Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(granting a new trial when the court erroneously denied a jury trial); – 85 ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (“The right to a jury trial affects the framework within which the trial proceeds[.]” (cleaned up)).
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
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Derendal, 209 Ariz. at 419, ¶ 8 , 104 P.3d at 150 ; ¶ 6 , ¶ 4 , , 226 P. 549, 550 (1924); , 141 P. 841, 842 (1914).
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
See Hoyle, 161 Ariz. at 229 , 778 P.2d at 264 (“Even if there was a right to a jury trial in paternity actions under a territorial statute in effect in 1910, article II, section 23 would not have preserved that right."); -50 , 227 P. 995, 996-98 (1924) ( , 141 P. 841 (1914) that Arizona Constitution protects pre-statehood statutory right to jury trial in all law and equity cases).
Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
226 P. 549, 549-50 (1924); 141 P. 841, 842 (1914).
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
Id.; , 141 P. 841, 842 (1914) (constitution guarantees jury-trial rights that “existed when the [constitution was adopted”).
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Hoyle v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Hoyle v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
141 P. 841, 842 (1914), the court relied upon an earlier, identical version of this provision in holding that the right to a jury trial was absolute.
Goldman v. Kautz 531 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
St. Ex Rel. De Concini v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, Pima County 454 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Morgan v. Hays 426 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1967
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
141 P. 841 (1914), Schrey v. Allison Steel Mfg.
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 410 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1966
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 410 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1966
141 P. 841 - (1914), we stated that the right of a jury trial as declared by our Constitution applied to such right as “existed when the Constitution was adopted.” In regard to Art. 2, § 23 of the Arizona Constitution, , that: “The provisi
Hammontree v. Kenworthy 404 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Hammontree v. Kenworthy 404 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Brown v. Greer (1914), , 141 P. 841 , it was stated that a statutory provision granting a jury trial as a matter of right in both law and equity cases, in •existence at the time of the adoption of ■our state constitution, was perpetuated by the clause in the Constitution (Art. 2 § 23, A.R.S.)
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 402 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 402 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
2 Decisions of our Supreme Court, though occasionally stating that the right of trial by jury as declared by our Constitution applies to such rights as “existed when the Constitution was adopted” [ , 141 P. 841, 842 [1914], have consistently held that the right as guaranteed in the Constitution does not apply to petty offenses.
State v. Cousins 397 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1964
State v. Cousins 397 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1964
Giss v. Jordan 309 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1957
Giss v. Jordan 309 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1957
141 P. 841 ; , 197 P. 704 ; Earhart v. Frohmiller, supra.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State 177 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1947
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State 177 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1947
State v. McEuen 26 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1933
State v. McEuen 26 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1933
Stukey v. Stephens 295 P. 973 Ariz. 1931
Stukey v. Stephens 295 P. 973 Ariz. 1931
Mounce v. Wightman 243 P. 916 Ariz. 1926
Mounce v. Wightman 243 P. 916 Ariz. 1926
Miller v. Thompson 229 P. 696 Ariz. 1924
Davis v. First National Bank 229 P. 391 Ariz. 1924
Davis v. First National Bank 229 P. 391 Ariz. 1924
Donahue v. Babbitt 227 P. 995 Ariz. 1924
Donahue v. Babbitt 227 P. 995 Ariz. 1924
We do not understand that the provisions of paragraph 786 above referred to are a modification of the well-known rule in equity trials, that where a court submits certain questions to the jury to be answered the answers are advisory only, and that the court may disregard the answers, and find for itself different from the findings by the jury.” , 141 Pac.
Bowden v. Nugent 226 P. 549 Ariz. 1924
Bowden v. Nugent 226 P. 549 Ariz. 1924
Townsend v. Odle 224 P. 814 Ariz. 1924
Townsend v. Odle 224 P. 814 Ariz. 1924
Jenkins v. Skelton 192 P. 249 Ariz. 1920
Jenkins v. Skelton 192 P. 249 Ariz. 1920
Miami Copper Co. v. State 149 P. 758 Ariz. 1915