Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Superior Court of Pinal County, 197 P. 537.

43 citing documents.

Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 297 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 297 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
197 P. 537, 539 (1921)).
State v. Davis 492 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1972
State v. Davis 492 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1972
State v. Federico 448 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1968
State v. Federico 448 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1968
As early as 1921, , 197 P. 537 , we held that a trial court could not issue a writ of habeas corpus to review a judgment of this Court, saying: “The affirmance of a judgment of conviction by this court must * * * be regarded by the judges of the * * * superior courts as a final determination * * *.
State ex rel. Eyman v. Shumway 442 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State ex rel. Eyman v. Shumway 442 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Galbraith v. Superior Court, etc., , 197 P. 537 (1921); State ex rel.
State v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1968
State v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1968
Justice Court of Tempe Precinct v. Keswick 433 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1967
Justice Court of Tempe Precinct v. Keswick 433 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1967
Galbraith, , 197 P. 537 .
Franklin v. State ex rel. Eyman 427 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Carter v. State ex rel. Eyman 427 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Carter v. State ex rel. Eyman 427 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Franklin v. State ex rel. Eyman 427 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
197 P. 537 (1921): “The fact that the superior courts and judges thereof have concurrent jurisdic *419 tion with this court in habeas corpus proceedings does not authorize either of those courts or either of such judges to issue writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of reviewing the judgments of this court.” 22 Ari
State v. Pill 425 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Pill 425 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
197 P. 537 (1921): “The question is: Could [the trial judge] legally entertain the petition for habeas corpus and thereby review the judgment of this court.
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 414 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1966
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 414 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1966
Eyman v. Cumbo 405 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1965
Eyman v. Cumbo 405 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1965
197 P. 537 ; State ex rel.
State v. Superior Court 385 P.2d 707 Ariz. 1963
State v. Superior Court 385 P.2d 707 Ariz. 1963
197 P. 537 , we are of the opinion the relief requested is more properly granted by a writ of prohibition, , , and we will consider this petition as if it had requested the issuance of the latter writ.
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Brooks 220 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1950
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Brooks 220 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1950
197 P. 537 , 539: “A judgment of this court imports absolute verity.
O'Neil v. Martin 182 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1947
O'Neil v. Martin 182 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1947
And, , 197 P. 537 , 538: “ * * * It is obvious that any other view would tend to bring about a deadly *85 conflict between the jurisdiction and power of this court and the jurisdiction and power of the superior court or the judge thereof, and would necessarily result in hampering and impeding the administration of the law
Ferguson v. Superior Court 127 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1942
Ferguson v. Superior Court 127 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1942
We had before us, , 197 Pac.
State of Arizona v. Griffith 96 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1939
State of Arizona v. Griffith 96 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1939
So far as the last point is concerned, , 197 Pac.
Hislop v. Rodgers 92 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1939
Hislop v. Rodgers 92 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1939
B.W.L. Sam v. State 265 P. 622 Ariz. 1928
State Ex Rel. Murphy v. Superior Court 249 P. 768 Ariz. 1926
State Ex Rel. Murphy v. Superior Court 249 P. 768 Ariz. 1926
State ex rel. Patterson v. Superior Court 229 P. 96 Ariz. 1924
State ex rel. Patterson v. Superior Court 229 P. 96 Ariz. 1924
Attorney General v. Superior Court, Pinal County, et al., , 197 Pac.
State v. Superior Court 215 P. 538 Ariz. 1923
State v. Superior Court 215 P. 538 Ariz. 1923
This is precisely what the district court of the second judicial district has assumed to do in this case, and it was beyond its jurisdiction to do so.” , 197 Pac.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by