Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Marquardt, 778 P.2d 241.

42 citing documents.

In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel Ariz. 2025
In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel Ariz. 2025
Regardless of this deferential standard, “this [C]ourt retains the ultimate authority to find facts, make conclusions of law, and impose discipline.” (“In reviewing disciplinary proceedings .
In the Matter of Lise R. Witt Ariz. 2024
In the Matter of Lise R. Witt Ariz. 2024
Despite this deferential standard, “this [C]ourt retains the ultimate authority to find facts, make conclusions of law, and impose discipline.” (“In reviewing disciplinary proceedings, .
Graeme Hancock v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar of Arizona 515 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2022
Graeme Hancock v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar of Arizona 515 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2022
The Bar cites two cases involving the use of issue preclusion in disciplinary proceedings for other regulated professions to support this argument:
State of Arizona v. Chris Thomas Gomez 482 P.3d 397 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Chris Thomas Gomez 482 P.3d 397 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
etion it afforded judges and prosecutors, stating, “[t]he offense shall be treated as a felony for all purposes until such time as the court may actually enter an order designating the offense a misdemeanor.” ¶¶ 6- 8, -18 (App. 2011) (language of § 13-604 clear and unambiguous).9 ¶24 Our supreme court’s decision in P.2d 241 (1989), further supports our conclusion.
In Re Abrams 257 P.3d 167 Ariz. 2011
In Re Abrams 257 P.3d 167 Ariz. 2011
See Fleischman, 188 Ariz. at 113, 933 P.2d at 570; Jett, 180 Ariz. at 111, 882 P.2d at 422; -18, -53 (1989); In re Ackel, 17 overruled in part by Jett, 180 Ariz. at 109, 882 P.2d at 420; In re Morales, Ariz. Comm’n on Jud.
Arpaio v. Davis 210 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arpaio v. Davis 210 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Ariz. Const. art. 6, §§ 12, 37, 38, 40; , 207 n. 1, , 242 n. 1 (1989).
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶ 17 TUSD also cites , in support of its issue preclusion argument.
In Re Nelson 86 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2004
In Re Nelson 86 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2004
In Re Flournoy 990 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1999
In Re Flournoy 990 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1999
Matter of Koch 890 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1995
Matter of Koch 890 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1995
It also falls within article 6.1, § 4 of the Arizona Constitution as “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.”
Matter of Goodfarb 880 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Goodfarb 880 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1994
In , this court suspended a judge of the superior court without pay for one year for a misdemeanor conviction that did not involve the performance of judicial duties.
In Re Lorona 875 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1994
In Re Lorona 875 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1994
respondent also argues that “suspension is a sanction that is reserved for those occasions where a judicial officer engages in wilful misconduct or knowingly and intentionally violates the Code of Judicial Conduct.” Because she did not engage in wilful misconduct and because the Commis
Matter of Peck 867 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Peck 867 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1994
In , a superior court judge was convicted of the misdemean- or crime of possession of marijuana.
Matter of Gumaer 867 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Gumaer 867 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1994
We conduct a de novo review of the record in these matters, , but will “give serious consideration to the findings of the commission.”
State v. Clough 829 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Clough 829 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The decision of our supreme court in the case of , is instructive on this point.
Matter of Anderson 814 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1991
Matter of Anderson 814 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1991
Matter of Lehman 812 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1991
Matter of Lehman 812 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1991
In Re Lockwood 804 P.2d 738 Ariz. 1990
In Re Lockwood 804 P.2d 738 Ariz. 1990
Barlow v. Blackburn 798 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Barlow v. Blackburn 798 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See generally , (judge disciplined for conduct that violated his oath of office and brought the judicial office into disrepute).
Matter of Hoover 779 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1989
Matter of Hoover 779 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1989
-215 , -250 (1989); Gary v. State Bar of California, 44 Cal.3d 820, 826 , , 244 Cal.Rptr.