Source: http://www.azvoterguide.com/philip-espinosa-court-of-appeals-division-2/
Timestamp: 2014-03-09 17:53:48
Document Index: 703120663

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 19', '§ 8', '§ 12', '§ 36', '§ 11', '§ 13', '§ 23', '§ 8']

Philip Espinosa, Court of Appeals, Div. 2 « azvoterguide.com | one vote can make a difference.
Philip Espinosa, Court of Appeals, Div. 2
Appointed in 1992 by Governor Fife Symington
For further biographical information, click here
Read Judge Espinosa’s report from Judicial Performance Review
The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review sets performance standards for the judges appointed through the merit selection process, decides whether or not a judge meets those standards, and reports the findings for judges up for retention election. Key Decisions
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-124.01, the Commission on Judicial Performance must specifically identify opinions in which an appellate court has declared a state statute to be constitutional or unconstitutional, and to further identify the provision of the Arizona or United State Constitution on which the court’s analysis is based. The following are the constitutional decisions on which Judge Philip Espinosa ruled.
6/26/2012 2 CA-JV 2012-0007 LISA K. v. ADES and JULIAN N.
Whether A.R.S. § 8-862 is facially unconstitutional because it permits the same judge who directs the Department of Economic Security to file a motion to terminate a parent’s rights to preside over the hearing on that motion and decide whether to grant it?
1/12/2011 2 CA-SA 2010-0074 WILLIAM ALLEN LEAR v. STATE OF ARIZONA
Does A.R.S. § 12-2203, which pertains to the admission of expert testimony, conflict with Rule 702, Ariz. R. Evid., and violate the separation of power doctrine, rendering it unconstitutional?
11/22/2010 2 CA-MH 2010-0004 IN RE PINAL COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH NO. MH201000076
Does the strict application of A.R.S. §§ 36-533(B), 36-539(B), and 36-501(14) conflict with Rules 702 and 703, Ariz. R. Evid., and violate the separation of powers doctrine?
3/4/2010 2 CA-CR 2009-0252 STATE OF ARIZONA v. ROGER PUTZI
Whether Tucson City Code § 11-54, which prohibits public urination, is unconstitutionally vague.
12/31/2009 2 CA-CR 2008-0148 STATE OF ARIZONA v. CESAR MONTES
Does Senate Bill 1449, which attempted to make A.R.S. § 13-205(A) retroactively applicable by nullifying our supreme court’s decision in Garcia v. Browning, 214 Ariz. 250, 151 P.3d 533 (2007), violate the separation of powers doctrine?
3/15/2008 2 CA-CV 2007-0143 CAIN; BAHR; HOLCOMB; AZ ASSOC. OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS; …
Do the Arizona Scholarship for Pupils with Disabilities Statute and the Arizona Displaced Pupils Grant Statute violate the Arizona Constitution by providing for state funds to be applied to the cost of tuition and fees for certain categories of students at private, sectarian and nonsectarian, primary and secondary schools at the direction of the students’ legal guardians?
3/29/2007 2 CA-IC 2006-0025 MONT POLANCO v. ICA; PIMA COUNTY
Does the requirement of A.R.S. § 23-1061(H) that a workers’ compensation claim “shall not be reopened because of increased subjective pain if the pain is not accompanied by a change in objective physical findings” violate article XVIII, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution by limiting the means by which an employee can meet the obligation to prove a “new, additional or previously undiscovered temporary or permanent condition” arose out of and in the course of employment?