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. Thompson, 679 P.2d 575.

51 citing documents.

  • State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Stoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Stoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Silverman v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.”).
  • Gomez Pools v. Arizona Registrar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.”) (citing School District No. 3 of Maricopa Cnty.
  • In Re Celestino S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    “Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.” (courts decline interpretation that results in an absurdity).
  • Hub v. maricopa/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Double taxation occurs when the same property or person is taxed twice for the same purpose or for the same taxing period by the same taxing authority[.]” (internal citations and quotations omitted).
  • Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    Romley, 168 Ariz. at 169, 812 P.2d at 987
  • LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    (“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.”).
  • State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    We assume the House of Representatives intended to change the intended cutoff age when it voted to approve the amendment to the bill from “under the age of fifteen” to “a child the age of fifteen years or under.” , (“[W]hen the legislature amends a statute we must presume [it] intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.”).
  • State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    § 13-2316(A)(7) in accordance with its plain language contravenes the rule that “courts should give the statute a sensible construction which will accomplish legislative interest and purpose, and which will avoid absurd results.” , ( , 557, , ).
  • SOROKIN v. Arnold 219 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (“[W]hen the legislature amends a statute we must presume [it] intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.”).
  • Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.”).
  • Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    “[W]hen the legislature amends a statute we must presume [it] intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.”
  • P & P Mehta LLC v. Jones 123 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 110 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    (court must give meaning to clear and unambiguous statutory language).
  • Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    In a circumstance “where alternate constructions are available, we should choose that which avoids constitutional difficulty.” , (citations omitted); , (“[I]f the statute is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which renders it unconstitutional, we must adopt the interpretation favoring its validity.”) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    Additionally, when legislators amend a statute, “‘we must presume they intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.’ ”
  • Jangula v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 88 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    conclusion that the 1998 amendment has changed the meaning of § 20-673(C) is strongly supported, if not mandated, by the interpretive principle that when the legislature has amended a statute, “we must presume they intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.” , ( , ).
  • Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    A legislative body may, however, “confer authority upon an agency or department to exercise its discretion in administering the law.” , 559
  • Pierce v. Molet 87 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Porter v. Triad of Arizona (L.P.) 52 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    “[sjtatutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.” ¶ 15 In this case, the most sensible construction of the language “a person entitled to bring an action” is that the legislature intended it to signify the person who owned the claim in question a
  • London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    ¶ 11 , (stating that in interpreting statutes, we must avoid constructions that lead to absurd results) (citations omitted); , (“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.”) (citations omitted).
  • 3613 Ltd. v. Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 978 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    See, , (county board of health’s jurisdiction limited to area within county but outside city’s corporate limits); A.R.S.
  • Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (stating that both “the federal and state constitutions require equal assessment of taxes.” (citation omitted)).
  • Weekly v. City of Mesa 888 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 865 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    “Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.” , (citing School Dist.
  • Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
    As the court of appeals noted in another case in which a statute’s language was amended from “shall” to “may” without specific expression of legislative intent, “when the legislature amends a statute we must presume they intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.”
  • State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    -76 , -28 (App.1985) (when interpreting statutes, courts will apply sensible construction); , (courts will apply statute in manner to avoid absurd results).
  • State v. Cooper 800 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Cooper 800 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Irving 797 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Distinguished Epstein v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 741 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Aikins v. ARIZ. DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 743 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • John Doe I v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 717 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Wilson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 709 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 701 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Sutton 693 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Sutton 693 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Vasquez 690 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984