Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Averyt, 876 P.2d 1158.

28 citing documents.

Dominguez v. Dominguez 567 P.3d 81 Ariz. 2025
Dominguez v. Dominguez 567 P.3d 81 Ariz. 2025
See ACLU of Ariz. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 20 (2021) (“[W]hen the legislature has specifically included a term in some places within a statute and excluded it in other places, courts will not read that term into the sections from which it was excluded.” (quoting Arpaio v. Citizen Publ’g Co., ¶ 9 (App. 2008))); (stating a court will not insert into a statute “words of limitation which the legislature has expressly omitted”); see also Scalia & Garner, supra ¶ 12, at 93 (addressing the “om
Sierra Club v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Sierra Club v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(court will not insert in statute “words of limitation which the legislature has expressly omitted”).
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(when legislature amends existing statute, we presume it was aware of prior judicial interpretations of statute); 8 The note was originally included as a statement of purpose with legislative amendments to title 19, chapter 1.
Walker v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Walker v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(noting that “the established rule, with few exceptions, prohibits criminal punishment without wrongful intent”).
Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange 332 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
4 , (court cannot interpret statute to insert words of limitation that the legislature has expressly omitted).
Haas v. Colosi 40 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Haas v. Colosi 40 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
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
(“Preventing the jury from considering evidence which might negate the mens rea of the crime would seriously undermine the protections embodied within the sixth amendment’s jury trial provision.”).
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-64 , -7 (1988) (holding that statutory amendment eliminating phrase “and intentionally” changed culpable mental state from “knowing and intentional” to only “knowing”).
In Re Victoria K. 11 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Victoria K. 11 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(applying presumption to legislative amendments to statutes).
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Alawy 9 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Alawy 9 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See McLamb, 188 Ariz. at 6 , 932 P.2d at 270 ("When the language is clear, the statute is not rendered unconstitutionally vague because there is a theoretical potential for arbitrary enforcement or the exercise of discretion by a law-enforcement officer or prosecutor, or even if the conduct is prevalent and ignored.”); , (same).
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Without specifying whether it was also referring to the Due Process Clause, article II, § 4, of the Arizona Constitution
State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(jury instruction that omits element of offense charged not “substantially free from error”).
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996