Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Russo, 196 P.3d 826.

42 citing documents.

State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
On the other hand, a fine “is a pecuniary punishment and a sanction.” ¶ 15 (App. 2008).
State v. Brackeen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Brackeen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
but we presume that the law is constitutional, and, therefore, the party challenging the law bears the burden of persuasion to the contrary.” ¶ 4 (App. 2008).
Holmes v. Allens Auto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Holmes v. Allens Auto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Patel 452 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Patel 452 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 22-375(A); ¶ 4 (App. 2008).
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Arevalo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Arevalo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶31 The Equal Protection Clause requires that “individuals within a certain class be treated equally and that there exist reasonable grounds for the classification.” ¶ 7 (App. 2008) (emphasis added) ( ¶ 25 (App. 2001)).
State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zeitner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Zeitner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 13–116's limitation.” McDonagh, 232 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 9; ¶ 15 (App. 2008) (accepting that an assessment, when deciding whether it was unconstitutionally excessive, is “tantamount to a fine, which is a pecuniary punishment and a sanction”).
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Okken 364 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Okken 364 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bagdonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bagdonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Monfeli 330 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Monfeli 330 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Boehler 262 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Boehler 262 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Lindner 252 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Lindner 252 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(limiting jurisdiction in appeal from superior court's ruling on appeal from municipal court to "validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine or statute"); ¶ 4 , (recognizing this court's jurisdiction is limited to determining the facial validity of a statute).
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“‘An excessive fine is one that exceeds reasonable, usual, proper, or just punishment’ or ‘one so disproportionate to the offense that it shocks public sentiment and affronts the judgment of reasonable people.’ ” ¶ 20 , (quoting Wise, 164 Ariz. at 576 , 795 P.2d at 219 ).