Seisinger v. Siebel
Arizona Supreme Court
1Concurrence
ECKERSTROM, Judge,*
concurring in part and concurring in the result.
¶ 45 I agree fully with the majority’s conclusions, set forth in part II of the foregoing opinion: (1) that the Arizona Constitution commands that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be “separate and distinct” and that no branch “shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others,” Ariz. Const, art. 3; (2) that the Arizona Constitution has expressly endowed the judiciary with the power to promulgate “rules relative to all procedural matters in any court,” id. art. 6, § 5(5); (3) that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. RobinsonArizona Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. HansenArizona Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. BirminghamArizona Supreme Court · 1964
- State Ex Rel. Collins v. SeidelArizona Supreme Court · 1984
- Readenour v. Marion Power ShovelArizona Supreme Court · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.