Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Barragan-Sierra, 196 P.3d 879.

27 citing documents.

State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 17 (App. 2008) (when construing statutory language, “[w]e employ a common sense approach, reading the statute in terms of its stated purpose and the system of related statutes of which it forms a part, while taking care to avoid absurd results”).
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
2492, 2500 , 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012), and states have “vast residual powers” reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ¶ 30 , (quoting United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109 , 120 S.Ct.
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In construing the language, “[w]e employ a common sense approach, reading the statute in terms of its stated purpose and the system of related statutes of which it forms a part, while taking care to avoid absurd results.” ¶ 17
Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, ¶ 18 (App. 2008) (defendant prosecuted for conspiring with others to smuggle himself into country).
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 17 (App. 2008) (Courts “employ a common sense approach” in interpreting a statute, “reading the statute in terms of its stated purpose and the system of related statutes of which it forms a part, while taking care to avoid absurd results.”).
State v. Gill 333 P.3d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gill 333 P.3d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 17, 1 We may consult respected dictionaries to determine the ordinary meanings of words.
State v. Lucas 321 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lucas 321 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In construing the language “[w]e employ a common sense approach, reading the statute in terms of its stated purpose and the system of related statutes of which it forms a part, while taking care to avoid absurd results.” ¶ 17
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
When construing statutory language “[w]e employ a common sense approach, reading the statute in terms of its stated purpose and the system of related statutes of which it forms a part, while taking care to avoid absurd results.” ¶ 17 , (citations omitted).
Mikel Lo, M.D. and Mikel W. Lo, M.d, Inc. v. Mills 298 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Mikel Lo, M.D. and Mikel W. Lo, M.d, Inc. v. Mills 298 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“We employ a common sense approach [when construing statutory language], reading the statute in terms of its stated purpose and the system of related statutes of which it forms a part, while taking care to avoid absurd results.”); see also Patches v. Indus.
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents 269 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re Marbella P. 221 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Marbella P. 221 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“We employ a common sense approach, reading the statute in terms of its stated purpose and the system of related statutes of which it forms a part, while taking care to avoid absurd results.” ¶ 17
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008