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. Crisp, 855 P.2d 795.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Schlicher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Schlicher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    erreaching by applying the statute.” 9 STATE v. SCHLICHER Decision of the Court ¶29 As for Schlicher’s First Amendment argument, the State correctly points out that “words spoken with the intent to bring about the commission of an act of prostitution are not protected speech.”
  • State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Walker v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Walker v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. 32 P.3d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. 32 P.3d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    the right [of an owner] to [make] any reasonable repairs or alterations.” ¶ 11 Although the Ordinance and the statute conflict, “[w]e will avoid finding an ordinance invalid on the ground of conflict with a state statute ‘if a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance’ will do so.” , (quoting Fendler v. Texaco Oil Co., 17 Ariz.App.
  • Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    (“One who asks or hires another to commit an illegal act thereby intends to secure, through the request and promise of payment, the illegal act.”).
  • Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    this Court again recognized that the plain meaning of “at least as stringent” permits cities to punish prostitution more severely than does the state.
  • State v. Singer 945 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Singer 945 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. McCoy 928 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. McCoy 928 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Baldwin 908 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Baldwin 908 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (“Our jurisdiction does not extend to examining the application of the statute to an individual defendant.
  • Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    are not protected speech.”
  • State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    -83 , -97 (App.1993) (appellate court will presume the validity of an ordinance unless it clearly appears otherwise); , (under the rules of construction there is a presumption in favor of constitutionality).