Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garcia, 193 P.3d 798.

34 citing documents.

Richard M. v. Patrick M. 462 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Richard M. v. Patrick M. 462 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-25, ¶ 13 (App. 2008); ¶ 6 (App. 2008).
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
6 STATE v. SIMMONS Decision of the Court the statute is the best and most reliable indicator of that intent.”
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶20 In determining whether a statute provides alternative means of committing the same offense, we must “ascertain and give effect to the intent of our legislature.”
monroe/pirtle v. Gagan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
monroe/pirtle v. Gagan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In considering the plain language, we assume words are meant to be given “their natural and obvious meanings unless otherwise stated.” ¶ 6 , (citing A.R.S.
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
-06, ¶ 6, -800 (App. 2008).
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-06, ¶ 6 , -800 (App.2008).
Bulk Transportation v. Industrial Commission 303 P.3d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Bulk Transportation v. Industrial Commission 303 P.3d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Nothing indicates that the Legislature intended to restrict the meaning of “about” to “on.” ¶ 6 , (stating that we will assume that “the legislature has given words their natural and obvious meanings unless *221 otherwise stated”).
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 302 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 302 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo 278 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo 278 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Patterson v. Patterson 248 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Patterson v. Patterson 248 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Dept. of Economic SEC. v. Tazioli 246 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Dept. of Economic SEC. v. Tazioli 246 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 6 , (noting that "[o]ur goal in interpreting statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature" and "[w]e first look at the plain language of the statute as the best and most reliable indicator of the statute's meaning" (citations omitted)); see also UIFSA §
State of Arizona v. James A. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. James A. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
The plain language of the statute is “„the best and most reliable indicator of the statute‟s meaning,‟ and, unless otherwise indicated, we assume the words contained in the statute have „their natural and obvious meanings.‟” Id.
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Regina Marie Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Regina Marie Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. James Lewandowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. James Lewandowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“Our goal in interpreting statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of our legislature.”