Skip to main content

State v. Maldonado

Citations

  • 223 P.3d 653
  • 223 Ariz. 309
  • 573 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 8
  • 2010 Ariz. LEXIS 1

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding reasoning of two prior supreme court eases, which found jurisdictional error arising from mere procedural defects in charging process, “no longer tenable”
  • providing that a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction cannot adjudicate the action
  • rejecting the suggestion that a defective information in itself deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction
  • discussing the difference between subject-matter jurisdiction and the court acting beyond constitutional or statutory authority
  • \Jurisdiction in this sense cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties and a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction cannot adjudicate the action.\
  • “ ‘[Sjubject matter jurisdiction’ refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bales, Berch, Hurwitz, Ryan, Pelander

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.