Legal Opinion

State v. Fell

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided August 22, 2002No. 2 CA-SA 2002-1148PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PELANDER, J.

¶ 1 In this special action, petitioner State of Arizona asks us to decide whether the respondent judge erred in ruling that the real party in interest Gayle Waldstein could use the necessity defense, codified in A.R.S. § 13-417, to defend against charges filed under Title 28, specifically, driving while under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). Because this is a purely legal question of first impression in Arizona and because the state has no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal, see A.R.S. § 22-375 and Rule 1(a), Ariz.R.P. Special Actions, 17B A.R.S., we…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Pima County v. HeinfeldArizona Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Vo v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  3. State v. PenaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
  4. Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
  5. Hughes v. JorgensonArizona Supreme Court · 2002

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Fragoso v. FellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  2. Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony SocietyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
  3. State v. BoxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  4. State v. HenryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  5. State v. GeorgeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003

49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API