FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].



Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas
 

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules

                

 

Welcome!

 

This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE READ: 

Contact Information

Please include all of your contact information when submitting a rule petition or comment.  Otherwise, your submission may be rejected and we will be unable to advise you as to why. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 10 Apr 2009 07:55 PM by  BrianStanley
R-08-0038 Supreme Court Rule 96. Powers and Duties of Court Commissioners
 1 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
jgreene
Posts:

--
23 Dec 2008 11:37 AM
    R-08-0038

    PETITION TO AMEND SUPREME COURT RULE 96

    WOULD EXPAND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF COURT COMMISSIONERS TO ENABLE THEM TO HEAR A WIDER RANGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

    Petitioner:
    David K. Byers, Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Court
    1501 W. Washington, Ste. 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3301

    Filed December 23, 2008

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2010.
    Attachments
    BrianStanley
    Posts:

    --
    10 Apr 2009 07:55 PM
    Brian K. Stanley
    3625 N 16th St #119
    Phoenix AZ 85016, 602-956-9201
    (Atty in private practice)

    I had been meaning to point out that in the existing text of R 96 (b)(2), the reference to "Rule 91 (a) (10) and (16)" should read "Rule 96 (a) (10) and (16)" I see this has been corrected in the proposed rule change. Whatever the disposition of the proposed change, this technical correction should be made.
    Topic is locked

    Forums Rule Change Petitions under Consideration Rules of the Supreme Court