DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arthur, 608 P.2d 90.

42 citing documents.

  • The State of Arizona v. Hon. Griffin Ryan Ahlersmeyer 526 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • The State of Arizona v. Hon. Griffin Ryan Ahlersmeyer 526 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
    (“Whenever possible, a statute will be given such an effect that no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”).
  • State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Because the term “preparing for” is not statutorily defined, “we must follow the plain and natural meaning of the language of the statute to discover what the legislature intended.” ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (“Unless the legislature clearly expresses an intent to give a term a special meaning, we give the words used in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning.”); (“A statute is not unconstitut
  • 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
    ¶12 Because the term “lawful order” is not statutorily defined, “we must follow the plain and natural meaning of the language of the statute to discover what the legislature intended.” ¶ 12, (“Unless the legislature clearly expresses an intent to give a term a special meaning, we give the words used in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning.”); 819 P
  • State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlock 350 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlock 350 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    preceding ‘a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary.’” (“Whenever possible, a statute will be given such an effect that no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”).
  • In re MH 2007-001264 189 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • In re MH 2007-001264 189 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Statutes in pan materia are read together and harmonized whenever possible to avoid making any clause, sentence or word “superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (noting that courts avoid “statutory interpretation[s] that lead[] to absurd results which could not have been contemplated by the legislature”); , (“[A] statute is to be given a sensible construction that will accomplish the legislative intent and at the same time avoid an absurd result.”).
  • State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Walter v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Walter v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    Requiring that all examinations be done in one session at exactly the same time would render superfluous section 36-3703(C), which provides that “[e]ach competent professional shall be given reasonable access to the person in order to conduct the examination.” , ( , (expressing court’s obligation to construe statutes so as not to render any part superfluous)).
  • State ex rel. Romley v. Johnson 993 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State ex rel. Romley v. Johnson 993 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    “Whenever possible, a statute will be given such an effect that no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”
  • Matter of Estate of Ryan 928 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Matter of Estate of Ryan 928 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    We read statutes in harmony to avoid leaving any part of them “superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”
  • State v. Jones 897 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Jones 897 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (holding that, whenever possible, statutes should be interpreted such that no clause is rendered superfluous or insignificant).
  • State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    are in pari materia are read together and harmonized, see -71 , -26 (1985); , to avoid rendering any clause, sentence or word “superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.” , 827 * ( , ).
  • State v. Millanes 885 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Millanes 885 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 870 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 870 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (“Whenever possible, a statute will be given such an effect that no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”).
  • State v. Moreno 844 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Moreno 844 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    This conclusion is not only absurd, and thus to be avoided, , but it is also inconsistent with the subsection’s legislative history.
  • State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    The state correctly reminds us “[wjhenever possible, a statute will be given such an effect that no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”
  • Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Pena 683 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Pena 683 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Feldstein 654 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Feldstein 654 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980