Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brown v. State, 573 P.2d 876.

51 citing documents.

State v. Dzieglo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Dzieglo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 12-120.21(A)(4); –78 (1978), he is not entitled to relief.
State v. Bolton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bolton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
When we lack appellate jurisdiction, “it is within our discretion to consider the matter as a special action.” , ( , ); see also A.R.S.
Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
it is within our discretion to consider the matter as a special action.” ( ); see also A.R.S.
KOOL RADIATORS, INC. v. Evans 278 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
KOOL RADIATORS, INC. v. Evans 278 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State of Arizona v. Patrick James Soriano 176 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Patrick James Soriano 176 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-78, -78 (1978) (treating habeas corpus petition as one for special action); -96, -04 (App. 1991) (treating petition for review pursuant to Rule 32.9, Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
is not aptly titled.’ ”), , (alteration in Meza).
State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(court may grant relief by special action even though motion or writ is inappropriately titled); , (“[although we do not have appellate jurisdiction to review this issue, it is within our discretion to consider the matter
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Powers 908 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Powers 908 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-78 , -78 (1978) (although pro per petitioner not entitled to relief under writ of habeas corpus, court treated petition as petition for special action).
Bustamonte v. Ryan 856 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bustamonte v. Ryan 856 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-78 , -78 (1978) (where relief may be granted by extraordinary writ a court may grant appropriate relief even though the writ applied for or the motion made is not aptly titled).
Wilkinson v. State 838 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Wilkinson v. State 838 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
See Thomas v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles, , (inmate on general parole and not temporary release when DOC failed to adopt requisite implementing rales pursuant to APA); , (DOC must comply with APA and file its rales involving good-time credits with secretary of state); , (rales affecting inmate custody without force or effect until DOC complies with APA).
Findlay v. Lewis 837 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1992
Findlay v. Lewis 837 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1992
State v. Perez 836 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Perez 836 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Findlay v. Lewis 831 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Findlay v. Lewis 831 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
see generally Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann., Vol.
White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
City of South Tucson v. Industrial Commission 753 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
City of South Tucson v. Industrial Commission 753 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)
Salstrom v. State 714 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Salstrom v. State 714 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Davis 712 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Davis 712 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McCormick v. Wawrzaszek 651 P.2d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
McCormick v. Wawrzaszek 651 P.2d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Our supreme court has treated pro se habeas corpus petitions as petitions for special actions both in proceedings originating in that court, , , and on appeal from denial of habeas corpus in superior court
Peru v. Raines 633 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Peru v. Raines 633 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Pima County Juvenile Action Nos. B-8272 & J-65774 v. Fisher 616 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1980
Pima County Juvenile Action Nos. B-8272 & J-65774 v. Fisher 616 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1980
Malumphy v. MacDougall 610 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1980
Malumphy v. MacDougall 610 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1980
we again noted that the Department of Corrections was under a legal obligation to file its regulations prescribing its policies and practices.
Pickett v. Boykin 576 P.2d 120 Ariz. 1978