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. Pinto, 880 P.2d 1139.

66 citing documents.

  • In Re Timothy M. 4 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Timothy M. 4 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    -96 , -42 (App.1994) (when statutory language gives rise to different interpretations, court will adopt interpretation most harmonious with statutory scheme and legislative purpose and compare interpretation to other acts that are in pari materia)
  • Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (statutory provisions must be construed in the context of the entire statute to determine intent).
  • Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    This means that the “court retains jurisdiction to modify the manner in which court-ordered restitution payments are made until such time that the amount has been paid in full, or until defendant’s sentence expires, whichever occurs last.”
  • Baker v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY. 947 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Baker v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY. 947 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (legislative intent is presumed constant within a statute and court must harmonize different parts of the statute so as to give the same effect to all parts).
  • Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Delgarito 938 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Delgarito 938 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (designating an undesignated offense implicates due process and requires notice and opportunity to be heard); , (designating an undesignated offense in defendant’s absence violated due process; defendant was entitl
  • State v. Shlionsky 911 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Shlionsky 911 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    Petitioner next argues, citing Smith, , , that he was denied due process because he was not given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the designation.
  • State v. Rodgers 909 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Rodgers 909 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995