Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Conkling v. Crosby, 239 P. 506.

34 citing documents.

Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Lakeside v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lakeside v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
to make determinations based on assessments of the credibility of witnesses is elementary.”); (stating a party attempting to show a judge is biased must do more than “prove facts which in his opinion merely .
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
-92 , , 239 P. 506, 509 (1925); see also ¶ 500, Rev. Stat. Ariz. (1913).
Mervyn's v. Superior Court 879 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Mervyn's v. Superior Court 879 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Keel 672 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Keel 672 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry 500 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry 500 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Truck Equipment Co. of Arizona v. Vanlandingham 442 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1968
Truck Equipment Co. of Arizona v. Vanlandingham 442 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1968
Lindus v. Northern Insurance 429 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Lindus v. Northern Insurance 429 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Rogers v. Superior Court 410 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Rogers v. Superior Court 410 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Prohibition § 20a; , , 239 P. 506 (1925).
Smith v. Rabb 386 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1963
Smith v. Rabb 386 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1963
Marsin v. Udall 279 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1955
Marsin v. Udall 279 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1955
Arizona Conference Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists v. Barry 231 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1951
Arizona Conference Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists v. Barry 231 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1951
239 P. 506 , 508 we said: “ * * * Prohibition is available to challenge the qualifications of the judge as well as the jurisdiction of the court.
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
Be that as it may, respondents’ , 239 P. 506, 510 , where it was held: “ * * * that where a judge as respondent to the writ appears in response to the rule to show cause and affirms the right of himself or of bis court to proceed with *254 the matter in hand, it then becomes unnecessary to show that objection to the jurisdiction was taken in such in
Mosher v. Wayland 158 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1945
Mosher v. Wayland 158 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1945
Speakman v. Sullivan 257 P. 986 Ariz. 1927
Speakman v. Sullivan 257 P. 986 Ariz. 1927