In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. Mh2003-000240

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for continuance to retain private counsel, in part because she “had no funds with which to hire private counsel, undercutting the proffered reason for the continuance”
• holding the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance to allow the appellant to secure private counsel when the appellant did not raise the issue prior to the hearing
• \Courts ordinarily interpret 'shall' to mean the provision is mandatory.\
• “Courts ordinarily interpret ‘shah’ to mean the provision is mandatory.”
• superior court has discretion to grant motion to continue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).