Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Betts, 188 P. 271.

23 citing documents.

Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“[P]rohibition is the proper remedy to prevent [judicial or quasi-judicial] action when it is without jurisdiction, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available.”
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
229 P. 99 (1924); , 188 P. 271 (1920); , 127 P. 727 (1912).
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
must consider in determining whether a writ of prohibition should properly issue is the meaning of the phrase “there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise available.” This court has said: “It is not enough that there existed, or may have existed, a concurrent remedy open to appellant, unless it was equally as plain, speedy, and adequate as the remedy by prohibition.” -372 , 188 P. 271, 274 .
City of Phoenix v. Lane 263 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1953
City of Phoenix v. Lane 263 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1953
The writ of prohibition is a proper remedy if in fact respondent is acting without or in excess of his jurisdiction, see, , ; , 188 P. 271 ; 50 C.J., Prohibition, sections 3, 20, and 41; 73 C.J.S., Prohibition, §§ 6, 8, 11(a), and 11 (j) — subdivision (11), and section 17.
Westerlund v. Croaff 198 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1948
Westerlund v. Croaff 198 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1948
Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 191 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1948
Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 191 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1948
188 P. 271 , 273: “ * * * It is well recognized that special tribunals exercising special summary powers must find their authority within the statute.
Duncan v. Superior Court of Pinal County 177 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1947
Duncan v. Superior Court of Pinal County 177 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1947
188 P. 271 ; , 245 P. 366 ; , ; , ; Morehouse v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 124 Cal.App.
Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Wright 166 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1946
Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Wright 166 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1946
City of Phoenix v. Wright 80 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1938
City of Phoenix v. Wright 80 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1938
ssion, or to enjoin, restrain or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties, and the rules, regulations, orders or decrees fixed by the commission shall remain in force pending the decision of the courts; provided, that the writ of mandamus shall lie from the supreme court to the commission in all proper cases.” , 188 Pac.
Peters v. Berryman 245 P. 282 Ariz. 1926
Peters v. Berryman 245 P. 282 Ariz. 1926
Hunt v. Schilling 229 P. 99 Ariz. 1924
Van Dyke v. Superior Court 211 P. 576 Ariz. 1922
Van Dyke v. Superior Court 211 P. 576 Ariz. 1922
But where there is another legal remedy by appeal or otherwise, or where the question of the jurisdiction of the court is doubtful, or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, or where the application is made by a stranger, the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary.” See, also, , 188 Pac.