William Z. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling on timeliness of motion to 7 intervene
• “We focus on the welfare of the children, giving only secondary consideration to the remaining interested parties.”
• “Several Arizona cases . . . have construed Rules 24(a) and 24(b) in the context of intervention in juvenile court proceedings.”
• “[W]e focus on the welfare of the children, giving only secondary consideration to the remaining interested parties.”
• based upon Bechtel, a lack of an individualized determination explaining the superior court’s denial of a motion to intervene constitutes an abuse of discretion
• “We focus on the welfare of the children, giving only secondary consideration to the remaining interested parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).