Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Van Dyke v. Superior Court, 211 P. 576.

60 citing documents.

Lillqvist v. Hon. fish/brigham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lillqvist v. Hon. fish/brigham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“criminal contempt is the commission of a disrespectful act directed at the court itself which obstructs justice [and] civil contempt is the disobeyance of a court order directing an act for the benefit or advantage of the opposing party” ()).
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See n. 1 supra; see also § 12-2101(C) through (L); , 211 P. 576, 588 (1922) (contempt is not “special proceeding!
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
§ 12-864, and citing Ex parte Wright, , 281 P. 944 (1929), , 211 P. 576 (1922)).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT-295003 616 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT-295003 616 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
United Farm Workers National Union v. Heggblade—Marguelas-Tenneco, Inc., 21 Ariz.App.
State v. Verdugo 602 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1979
State v. Verdugo 602 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1979
t which obstructs the administration of justice, or which lessens the dignity and authority of the court, may be held in contempt of court.” , this court distinguished criminal and civil contempt: “[CJriminal contempt is the commission of a disrespectful act directed at the court itself which obstructs justice, , 211 P. 576 ; civil contempt is the disobedience of a court order directing an act for the benefit or advantage of the opposing party to the litigation, Van Dyke v. Superior Court, supra
United Farm Workers National Union v. Heggblade - Marguleas - Tenneco, Inc. 520 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
United Farm Workers National Union v. Heggblade - Marguleas - Tenneco, Inc. 520 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
211 P. 576 (1922); Van Baalen v. Superior Court, supra; Anonymous v. Superior Court, 4 Ariz.App.
Van Baalen v. Superior Court 508 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Van Baalen v. Superior Court 508 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In re Wright, supra; , 211 P. 576 (1922); Anonymous v. Superior Court, supra; Herzog v. Reinhardt, supra; cf. Weiss v. Superior Court, supra; Ong Hing v. Thurston, supra; Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra.
State v. Cohen 489 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Cohen 489 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Spence 430 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Spence 430 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
n criminal and civil contempt : “ * * * criminal contempts being acts which obstruct the administration of justice or tend to bring the court into disrepute, as distinguished from civil con-tempts, which consist of failing to do something which the contemnor is ordered by the court to do for the benefit or advantage of another party to the proceeding before the court.” , 211 P. 576, 581 (1922).
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 418 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1966
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 418 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1966
Anonymous v. Superior Court 418 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Anonymous v. Superior Court 418 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
103, 104 , ; , 211 P. 576 (1922) ; , 281 P. 944 (1929) ; A.R.S.
Ong Hing v. Thurston 416 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1966
Ong Hing v. Thurston 416 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1966
Contempt has been broken down into four classifications: criminal contempt is the commission of a disrespectful act directed at the court itself which obstructs justice, , 211 P. 576 ; civil contempt is the disobeyance of a court order directing an act for the benefit or advantage of the opposing party to the litigation,- Van Dyke v. Superior Court, supra; direct contempt is an act committed in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice
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
211 P. 576 where we approved language: *171 “ ‘That a writ of prohibition may not ordinarily be used as a process for the review and correction of errors committed by inferior tribunals.’ ” 24 Ariz. at p. 519 , 211 P. at p. 580 (Emphasis added) To decide whether a lower tribunal has acted in excess of its jurisdicti
Herzog v. Reinhardt 406 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Herzog v. Reinhardt 406 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
211 P. 576 .” ( , 281 P. 944, 946 .)
State v. Betts 406 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Betts 406 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
211 P. 576 (1922), apply in this proceeding.
Wright v. Stidham 390 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1964
Wright v. Stidham 390 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1964
Brown v. Superior Court 276 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1954
Brown v. Superior Court 276 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1954
eration of the nature and scope of the remedial writs left to the relators as alternatives to a denial of the writ of prohibition would seem to render imperative the conclusion that to remit the petitioners to the other remedies afforded by law would be tantamount to a denial of justice, and that such remedies are inadequate, at least at this stage of the proceedings.” , 211 P. 576, 588 .
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
See Redewill v. Superior Court , ; Van Dyke v. Superior Court, *253 , 211 P. 576 ; , .
Board of Regents of University & State Colleges v. Frohmiller 208 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1949
Board of Regents of University & State Colleges v. Frohmiller 208 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1949
Johnson v. Superior Court 199 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1948
Johnson v. Superior Court 199 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1948
211 P. 576, 588 , wherein respondents sought the dismissal of an alternative writ of prohibition upon the ground that the ordinary remedy of appeal or the additional remedies of certiorari and habeas corpus were available.
D. W. Onan & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court 179 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1947
D. W. Onan & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court 179 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1947
211 P. 576 ; Crowned King Min.
Hislop v. Rodgers 92 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1939
Hislop v. Rodgers 92 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1939
City of Phoenix v. Wright 80 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1938
City of Phoenix v. Wright 80 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1938
Redewill v. Superior Court 29 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1934
Redewill v. Superior Court 29 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1934
In Re Louie Quan 3 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1931
Wright v. Quan 39 Ariz. 13 Ariz. 1931