Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 827 P.2d 1134.

56 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(rule of lenity applies to penal statutes “susceptible to different interpretations”).
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. City of Phoenix, , 503, , 164 (1991); Garza Rodriguez, 164 Ariz. at 112 , 791 P.2d at 638
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
7 GRIC v. DCS, et al. Opinion of the Court P.2d 161, 164 (1991); Garza Rodriguez, 164 Ariz. at 112, 791 P.2d at 638
State v. Turner 372 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Turner 372 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gries v. Plaza Del Rio Management Corp. 335 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gries v. Plaza Del Rio Management Corp. 335 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
statutes must be “read together and harmonized[] to avoid rendering any clause, sentence or word ‘superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.’” –500, –220 (App. 1995) (quoting 7 GRIES et al. v. HARPER/ ) (citations omitted).
In Re Estate of King 269 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Estate of King 269 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
4 ¶ 18 “If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must give it effect without resorting to any rules of statutory construction.” ¶ 7 , ( , ).
State v. Carver 258 P.3d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Carver 258 P.3d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must give it effect without resorting to any rules of statutory construction.” ¶ 7 , ( , ).
State v. Russell 249 P.3d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Russell 249 P.3d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
v. City of Phoenix, , Garza Rodriguez, 164 Ariz. at 112 , 791 P.2d at 638
State v. CASTRONOVA 212 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. CASTRONOVA 212 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We read statutes on the same subject together and in harmony whenever possible to avoid making any clause, sentence or word “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 of Arizona v. Daniel James Alexander Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel James Alexander Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
“If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must give it effect without resorting to any rules of statutory construction.” P.2d 1222 (1991).
State v. McKeon 38 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. McKeon 38 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
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)).
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency 2 P.3d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency 2 P.3d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(if statute’s language clear and unambiguous, we must give it effect without resorting to rules of statutory construction).
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See Alaface; , (we presume the natural and obvious meaning of words unless stated otherwise).
In Re William G. 963 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re William G. 963 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Babe Investment v. Arizona Corp. Commission 939 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Babe Investment v. Arizona Corp. Commission 939 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
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. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
321, 326-27 , 5 L.Ed.2d 312 (1961)
Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Padilla v. Industrial Comm’n, , , (legislature is presumed to express itself in “as clear a manner as possible” and that “it accorded words their natural and obvious meanings unless stated otherwise”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by