DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McMahon, 38 P.3d 1213.

35 citing documents.

  • State v. Vansickel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    We presume that statutes are constitutional, and the party challenging that statute “has the heavy burden of overcoming that presumption.” ¶ 5 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶13 “A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.” ¶ 7 (App. 2002) (citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108–09 (1972)).
  • State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Batty v. Az Medical Brd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Batty v. Az Medical Brd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo but “presume that the statute is constitutional and must construe it, if possible, to give it a constitutional meaning.” ¶ 5 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Siljander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Siljander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Hernandez 476 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Hernandez 476 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Instead, “[a] statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.” ¶ 7 (App. 2002) (citations omitted).
  • Holmes v. Allens Auto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Holmes v. Allens Auto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    § 22-375; ¶ 3 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “In reviewing a challenge to a statute, we presume that the statute is constitutional and must construe it, if possible, to give it a constitutional meaning.” ¶ 5 (App. 2002); ¶ 17 (App. 1999) (“We .
  • Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    -26, ¶ 6 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2002)); see also Baldwin, 184 Ariz. at 270 (finding undefined terms susceptible to multiple meanings does not necessarily render a statute unconstitutionally vague).
  • State v. Eagleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Eagleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.” State v. 4 ¶ 7 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 3, -97, 254 P. 225, 227-28 (1927) (holding that review was limited to facial constitutional challenge to a statute on appeal from superior court review of a justice court decision).
  • State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    3 STATE V. COULTER Opinion of the Court ¶6 “A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.” ¶ 7, (citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108–09 (1972)).
  • State v. PUTZI 225 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. PUTZI 225 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Tyla Naureen Poshka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Tyla Naureen Poshka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    We review de novo the constitutionality of a statute, P.3d 1213 (App. 2002), and, if possible, construe the statute to give it a constitutional meaning.
  • State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    516-17 ¶ 4, -66 (App.2003); , 550 ¶¶ 3, 5, see also A.R.S.
  • State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Mutschler 65 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Mutschler 65 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    Because this matter originated in municipal court, “[o]ur jurisdiction is limited to a review of the facial validity of the [ordinance].” ¶ 3 , see also Ariz. Rev.Stat.