Prosise v. Kottke

14 Citing cases

  1. City of Mesa v. Ryan

    539 P.3d 142 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    I. This Matter Presents a Purely Legal Issue of Statewide Importance Appropriately Addressed by Special Action. ¶8 Whether to accept jurisdiction of a special action is "highly discretionary," but is "appropriate ‘in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.’ " Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77 ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) (quoting State ex rel. Romley v. Martin , 203 Ariz. 46, 47 ¶ 4, 49 P.3d 1142, 1143 (App. 2002) ). How to interpret the specificity requirement in A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) is a purely legal question of statewide importance that commonly recurs.

  2. J.V. v. Blair

    536 P.3d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    ¶7 Though "highly discretionary," special action jurisdiction may be appropriate when a party has no "equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal." Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77 ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) (quoting Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a) ). "Jurisdiction is also appropriate ‘in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.’ " Id. (quoting State ex rel. Romley v. Martin , 203 Ariz. 46, 47 ¶ 4, 49 P.3d 1142, 1143 (App. 2002) ).

  3. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Lemaire

    255 Ariz. 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    ¶13 Our decision to accept special action jurisdiction in a particular case is highly discretionary. Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020). We accepted jurisdiction here because the State had no adequate remedy by appeal and because interpretation of Johnson ’s requirement that the State obtain judicial approval before refiling charges previously dismissed on grounds of incompetency is a matter of statewide importance.

  4. McGlothlin v. Astrowsky

    255 Ariz. 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Special action jurisdiction is appropriate "in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again." Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77 ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020). ¶10 Former Counsel claims the superior court erred in refusing to compel Father to produce an unredacted copy of Replacement Counsel's file.

  5. King v. Starr

    522 P.3d 195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022)

    ¶6 "Special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary but may be appropriate when no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists." E.H. v. Slayton , 251 Ariz. 289, 291, ¶ 7, 491 P.3d 396, 398 (App. 2021) (quoting Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) ); Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 8(a). Acceptance of such jurisdiction is appropriate where a petitioner has no effective appellate remedy.

  6. State v. MacHardy

    521 P.3d 613 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 8 times

    This standard extends to every essential element of the offenses charged. See Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, ¶ 21, 466 P.3d 386 (App. 2020). In evaluating the sufficiency of the state's evidence, we may not "reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility."

  7. E.H. v. Slayton

    251 Ariz. 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Jurisdiction is also appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again." Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) (quotations omitted). ¶8 As a crime victim, E.H. has standing to seek special action relief from the superior court's denial of her restitution claim.

  8. State v. Hannah

    250 Ariz. 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Jurisdiction is also appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again." Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) (quotations omitted). ¶8 This court generally will decline special action jurisdiction over discovery disputes.

  9. State v. Winfield

    1 CA-CR 22-0596 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2023)

    The record has "evidence that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." Prosise v. Kottke, 249 Ariz. 75, 79, ¶ 21 (App. 2020) (citation omitted). Two bouncers testified.

  10. Mitchell v. Reckart

    1 CA-SA 23-0045 (Ariz. Ct. App. May. 23, 2023)

    SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶9 Though "highly discretionary," special action jurisdiction may be appropriate when no "equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists." Prosise v. Kottke, 249 Ariz. 75, 77 ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (cleaned up).