Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles, 629 P.2d 1035.

28 citing documents.

Merrick v. Aboec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Merrick v. Aboec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Pardons & Paroles, (“[C]ommutation is a matter of grace, not of right.”).
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
of Pardons & Paroles
State v. Nguyen 912 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nguyen 912 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
2100, 2103-04 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (no constitutional right to parole release); , (no constitutional right to commutation of sentence); Crerand, 176 Ariz. at 152 , 859 P.2d at 775 (no constitutional right to good-time credit); (classification of sentences under Habitual Criminal Act does not involve suspe
Wallace v. Shields 854 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Wallace v. Shields 854 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
of Pardons & Paroles
Maricopa County v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
of Pardons, , quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct.
Arnold v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 805 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Arnold v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 805 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
“[T]he Arizona courts have held that commutation is a matter of grace, not of right.” Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles
State v. Ritch 774 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Ritch 774 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
of Pardons & Paroles
Able Distributing Co. v. James Lampe 773 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Able Distributing Co. v. James Lampe 773 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
of Pardons & Paroles
Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Public … 771 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Public … 771 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 770 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 770 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
cates of exemption are also entitled to Type 2 grandfathered rights, then subsection C would have been written with one category reading, “Any non-irrigation user.” “Where the legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read that term into the excluded section.” Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles
Revco D.S. v. Brooks 760 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Revco D.S. v. Brooks 760 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
See Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles, , where the court stated: “Where the legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read that term into the excluded section.” The real thrust of Revco’s argument is that because an “optical establishment
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles
Cooper v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 717 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Cooper v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 717 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Bearup v. Voss 690 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Bearup v. Voss 690 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
in asserting that where a term has been used in certain places and excluded in another place, courts will not read that term into the excluded section.