State v. Zaman
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MARTONE, Justice.
¶ 1 In State v. Zaman, 190 Ariz. 208, 946 P.2d 459 (1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 1167, 140 L.Ed.2d 177 (1998), we held that the superior court has jurisdiction over an action brought by the state against a non-Indian father to determine paternity, custody, and child support obligations. We vacated the contrary opinion of the court of appeals. On remand, the court of appeals held that a county sheriff could not serve process on a non-Indian within the boundaries of the reservation. State v. Zaman, 261 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 28, No. 1 CA-CV 94-0259, 1998 WL 25559…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian TribeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Organized Village of Kake v. EganSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. McBratneySupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Raymond JohnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- Medina v. CheeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2023
- Singer v. palmer/mondexCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
- Sloan v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021
- State v. ZamanArizona Supreme Court · 1999