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. Oehlerking, 709 P.2d 900.

26 citing documents.

  • In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Wyatt, 167 Ariz. at 284 , 806 P.2d at 873 ( , ).
  • In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Wyatt, 167 Ariz. at 284 , 806 P.2d at 873 ( , ).
  • State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    the court stated that “[n]o finding was made, as is required, that the defendant in fact has the financial resources to offset the costs” (emphasis added), , the court stated that “[t]he rule is clearly directe
  • State of Arizona v. Thomas Giles Connolly 163 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Thomas Giles Connolly 163 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (trial court is empowered to order reimbursement for legal services pursuant to Rule 2 6.7(d), Ariz. R. Crim.
  • Goddard v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Goddard v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Because possession for sale is defined as something other than possession or use elsewhere within the statute, , (“Where the same words or phrases appear in the same statute, they should be given a consistent meaning unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.”).
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (“A statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes which relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose.”); , , (“Where the same words or phrases appear in the same statute, they should be given a consistent meaning unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary.”).
  • State v. Lopez 853 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Lopez 853 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    The Arizona Court of Appeals has further defined the requirements of Rule 6.7(d) in two cases:
  • Wyatt v. Wehmueller 806 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1991
  • Wyatt v. Wehmueller 806 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Tietjens 729 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Tietjens 729 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1986
    3 We agree with the Court of Appeals’ -70 , -04 (App.1985), that under this statute the sentencing court must set the amount of monthly payments and determine when the payments should begin.
  • State v. Wilson 724 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Wilson 724 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Initially, we note that, , there is no requirement in A.R.S.
  • State v. Currie 721 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Currie 721 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    This court has previously stated, , that the court cannot delegate to the Board of Pardons and Paroles the function of determining the manner in which restitution is to be made.
  • State v. Moore 717 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Moore 717 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in requiring him to pay restitution as ordered by the Board of Pardons and Parole because he would be serving flat time and when released from prison would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Pardons and Parole and that, in any event
  • State v. Nosie 724 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Nosie 724 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986