Source: http://www.azcourts.gov/opinions/SearchOpinions.aspx?year=2013&court=999
Timestamp: 2013-05-25 02:58:30
Document Index: 401888638

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 21', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 12', '§ 1', 'art. 2', '§ 13', 'art. 18', '§ 6', 'art. 4', '§ 19', 'art. 3', '§ 37']

Search filter ON - 19 records found
SB-12-0039In the Matter of Rachel R. AlexanderOPINION
SB-12-0040In the Matter of RICHARD B. JOHNSONOPINION
CR-10-0052STATE OF ARIZONA v ERIC BOYSTONOPINION
John Pelander, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur, Scott Bales, Concur, Robert M. Brutinel, Concur, Diane M. Johnsen, ConcurConstitutionality DecisionHolding A.R.S. § 13-503 (providing that voluntary, temporary intoxication “is not a defense for any criminal act or requisite state of mind”) constitutional and not violative of U.S. Const. amend. 6 (right to confront evidence and to present a complete defense), U.S. Const. amend. 8 (cruel and unusual punishment), or U.S. Const. amend. 14 (due process, equal protection). Holding A.R.S. § 13-756(A) (providing for abuse of discretion appellate review in capital cases) constitutional and not violative of U.S. Const. amend. 8 (cruel and unusual punishment) or U.S. Const. amend. 14 (due process).
CR-10-0362STATE OF ARIZONA v EDWARD JAMES ROSEOPINION
John Pelander, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur, Scott Bales, Concur, Robert M. Brutinel, Concur, Ann A. Scott Timmer, ConcurConstitutionality DecisionHolding A.R.S. § 21-202(B)(3) (requiring dismissal of prospective jurors “not currently capable of understanding the English language”) constitutional and not violative of U.S. Const. amend. 6 (right to jury trial) or U.S. Const. amend. 14 (due process, equal protection). Holding A.R.S. § 13-752(R) (authorizing victim impact statements in capital cases) constitutional and not violative of U.S. Const. amend. 8 (cruel and unusual punishment) or U.S. Const. amend. 14 (due process). Holding A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(10) (providing as an aggravating circumstance in a capital case that the victim “was an on duty peace officer who was killed in the course of performing the officer’s official duties and the defendant knew, or should have known, that the murdered person was a peace officer”) constitutional and not violative of U.S. Const. amend. 8 (cruel and unusual punishment) or U.S. Const. amend 14 (due process, equal protection). Holding A.R.S. § 13-756(A) (providing for abuse of discretion appellate review in capital cases) constitutional and not violative of U.S. Const. amend. 8 (cruel and unusual punishment) or U.S. Const. amend. 14 (due process).
CR-12-0238STATE OF ARIZONA v DAVID JAMES YONKMANOPINION
CR-10-0196STATE OF ARIZONA v STEVEN JOHN PARKEROPINION
Rebecca White Berch, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Samuel A. Thumma, Concur
CV-12-0102ROBERT BAKER v UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS HEALTHCARE et alOPINION
Scott Bales, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Michael J. Brown, ConcurConstitutionality DecisionHolding A.R.S. § 12-2604 constitutional as not contrary to U.S. Const. amend. 14, § 1 (equal protection and due process); Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 13 (privileges and immunities); Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6 (anti-abrogation); Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 19 (prohibition against special laws); and Ariz. Const. art. 3 (separation of powers). 3/6/2013
CR-12-0018STATE OF ARIZONA v AUSTIN JAMES BONFIGLIOOPINION
Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur, Scott Bales, Concur, A. John Pelander, Concur, Peter J. Cahill, Concur
CV-12-0241STAGECOACH TRAILS MHC v CITY OF BENSON et alOPINION
Scott Bales, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur
CV-12-0149FRANK HOFFMAN v HON. CHANDLER/STATEOPINION
Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur; Scott Bales, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur
CV-12-0007In re the ESTATE OF MARY A. RILEYOPINION
Rebecca White Berch, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Peter J. Cahill, Concur
CV-12-0120In re the ESTATE OF FRED N. KIRKESOPINION
Rebecca White Berch, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Michael J. Brown, Concur
CV-12-0211JAMES C. SELL v HON. GAMA/SQUIRE & COMPANY et alOPINION
A. John Pelander, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur, Robert M. Brutinel, Concur, Peter J. Eckerstrom, Concur, Garye L. Vasquez, Concur
CV-12-0273REP ANDREW TOBIN et al v HON REA et alOPINION
A. John Pelander, Author; Scott Bales, Concur, Robert M. Brutinel, Concur
CV-12-0286QUALITY EDUCATION v KEN BENNETT/THOMAS HORNEOPINION
A. John Pelander, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur
CR-10-0085STATE OF ARIZONA v MANUEL OVANTE, JR.OPINION
CV-11-0358RAE ANN RUMERY et al v MARIA BAIER/DOUG DUCEYOPINION
Scott Bales, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Virginia C. Kelly, ConcurConstitutionality DecisionHolding A.R.S. § 37-527, which diverts up to ten percent of certain trust land proceeds to a management fund, unconstitutional because Article 10, Section 7(A) of Arizona’s Constitution requires such monies to be deposited into a permanent fund to serve the purpose for which the land was granted.
CR-09-0199STATE OF ARIZONA v SHAWN RYAN GRELLOPINION
Rebecca White Berch, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur
CV-12-0272SAVE OUR VOTE et al v. BENNETT/OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE SUPPORTING C-03-2012OPINION
Scott Bales, Author; Rebecca White Berch, Concur; A. John Pelander, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Patricia A. Orozco, Concur