Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cid, 892 P.2d 216.

115 citing documents.

State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-500 , -20 (App.1995) (statutes in pari materia are read together and harmonized to avoid rendering any word, clause or sentence superfluous or void).
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(although trial court did not articulate factual findings as to mitigating factors, aggravated sentence upheld where trial court was aware *459 of mitigating factors presented by defendant, trial court expressly found valid aggravating factors, and trial court specifically found that aggravat
Allstate Insurance v. Universal Underwriters, Inc. 17 P.3d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Allstate Insurance v. Universal Underwriters, Inc. 17 P.3d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(words and phrases in statute are to be accorded their obvious and natural meaning); , (to avoid contradictory construction of clauses, sentences, or words, statutes that are in pari materia must be “read together and harmonized”).
State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(statutes in pari materia read together and harmonized whenever possible).
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re David H. 967 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In Re David H. 967 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
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.”