DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

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