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. Moerman, 895 P.2d 1018.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Bighorse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Bighorse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    The statute expressly states that a deadly weapon “includes a firearm.” If a firearm were the only deadly weapon, there would be no need for the definition to “include[] a firearm.” (noting a presumption that the legislature does not include provisions that are “redundant, void, inert, trivial, superfluous, or contradictory.”).
  • In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    We also consider the statutory scheme as a whole and presume that the legislature does not include statutory provisions that are “redundant, void, inert, trivial, superfluous, or contradictory.” , A, Cruel Mistreatment—Serious Physical Injury ¶ 10 To support a delinquency finding for cruel mistreatment of an animal, the State was required to prove that (1) Jessie tortured or otherwise inflicted unnecessary serious physical injury on the cat, or (2) he killed the cat in a manner
  • State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    257-58 n. 1, , 1020-21 n. 1 (App.1994) (“A statute is presumed to be constitutional....”).
  • Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    ¶ 22 A further core tenet of statutory construction is the “presumption that the legislature does not include in statutes provisions which are redundant, void, inert, trivial, superfluous, or contradictory.”
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    In this regard, we consider the statutory scheme as a whole and presume that the legislature does not include statutory “provisions which are redundant, *335 void, inert, trivial, superfluous, or contradictory.”
  • City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board 86 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board 86 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    (when construing statute court must examine statute as a whole and give harmonious effect to all its sections).
  • City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (holding that the court must construe a statute as a whole, presuming the legislature did not include provisions that are “redundant, void, inert, trivial, superfluous, or contradictory”).
  • Caretto v. Arizona Department of Transportation 965 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Caretto v. Arizona Department of Transportation 965 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Adams 941 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Adams 941 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    We have held that the statute is intended to “ ‘protect[ ] the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a deadly weapon of which the public is unaware, and which an individual may use in a sudden heat of passion.’” , ( , ).