State v. Fell
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Pima County v. HeinfeldArizona Supreme Court · 1982
- Vo v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- State v. PenaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
- Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
- Hughes v. JorgensonArizona Supreme Court · 2002
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Fragoso v. FellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony SocietyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- State v. BoxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- State v. HenryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- State v. GeorgeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.