Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal County, 637 P.2d 723.

30 citing documents.

Kestenbaum v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Kestenbaum v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
tatute does not violate a fundamental right or create an invidious classification, “a statute impinging on the equal privileges and 8 KESTENBAUM v. FORD, et al. Decision of the Court immunities of a class of Arizona residents will be upheld if it has a rational basis.” Tahtinen v. Superior Ct., Pinal Cnty.
Coleman v. Amon 498 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Coleman v. Amon 498 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
To satisfy this clause, a statute that does not violate a fundamental right or create an invidious classification need only “rationally further[] a legitimate legislative purpose.”
Thiele v. City of Phoenix 301 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Thiele v. City of Phoenix 301 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ct., , (discussing Eastin’s use of rational basis review of statutes that regulate a fundamental right, and holding “that unless a fundamental right is violated or an invidious classification is created, a statute impinging on the equal privileges and immunities of a class of Arizona residents
Tripati v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Tripati v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Inzunza-Ortega v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Inzunza-Ortega v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Merrick v. Lewis 952 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Merrick v. Lewis 952 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
holding: *74 [I]ndigent plaintiffs or appellants have the right to waiver of filing fees in Arizona courts only when the case [involves] an appeal from a criminal conviction, a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality, of the state’s incarceration of the plaintiff, or a lawsuit [involving
Kahn v. Thompson 916 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Kahn v. Thompson 916 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
“[Ujnless a fundamental right is violated or an invidious classification is created, a statute impinging on the equal privileges and immunities of a class of Arizona residents will be upheld if it has a rational basis.” , quoting Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal County
Browning v. Corbett 734 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Browning v. Corbett 734 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
The fee in question here does not prohibit access to the courts since, as the trial court noted, an indigent seeking marriage dissolution in Arizona can obtain a waiver of the filing fees, see Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal County, , cert.
Gockley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 725 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1986
Gockley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 725 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1986
(§ 12-311 filing fees represent costs incurred by the state regardless of litigant’s financial status, are not excessive, and time for payment may be extended for a reasonable time), cert.
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila County 687 P.2d 1257 Ariz. 1984
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila County 687 P.2d 1257 Ariz. 1984
Tuzon v. MacDougall 671 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Tuzon v. MacDougall 671 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Graham v. Salazar 661 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1983
Graham v. Salazar 661 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1983
The categories of cases which upon proper showing constitute exceptions to the requirements for paying filing fees in Arizona courts were set forth in Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal County
Trujillo v. Superior Court of Pima County 656 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Trujillo v. Superior Court of Pima County 656 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
The most recent pronouncement of the Arizona Supreme Court is Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal County
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
However, the court recently held in Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal County, , that indigent prisoners are not entitled to a waiver of filing fees in civil actions or civil appeals.