Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Baca, 926 P.2d 528.

54 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶10 Although we generally must apply the unambiguous language of a statute or court rule without using other means of statutory construction, we are not bound to do so where that interpretation would lead to an absurd result, (when construing a statute or court rule, “we presume that the framer did not intend an absurd result and our construction must be aimed at avoiding such a consequence”).
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
(holding that § 13-4033(B) “impliedly amended” now-renumbered § 13-4033(A)(3)).
Arizona State Hospital v. Klein 296 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona State Hospital v. Klein 296 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
172 Ariz. at 45-46, 833 P.2d at 716-17; (in construing statute, appellate court presumes legislature did not intend absurd result and we attempt to avoid such consequence).
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(“[T]he judicial interpretation of a court rule becomes as much a part of the rule as if the words were originally included therein.”) ( , ).
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
-65, -32 (App. 1996), “the underlying purpose” of § 13-4033(B) and contemporaneous statutory and rule amendments “was to unclog an appellate system burdened with guilty plea and probation violation admission appeals and divert such cases to the Rule 32 process.” But the state‟s construction of
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Montgomery, supp. op., 182 Ariz. at 119 n. 1, 893 P.2d at 1282 n. 1; 61 , 110 (App.1997) (precluding pleading defendant from directly appealing felony designation “would violate [right to appeal under article II, § 24 of] the constitution” because Rule 32 does not allow for review); , (suggesting pleading defendant could have appealed directly if same ground for relief not available under Rule 32).
Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P. 222 P.3d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P. 222 P.3d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(“[I]n construing court rules, we apply principles of statutory construction.”); Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rest., Inc., , (“Our rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction wi
Joon Nae Kim v. Mansoori 153 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Joon Nae Kim v. Mansoori 153 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“Our construction must necessarily be governed by the overarching principle that when interpreting a court rule or statute, we are seeking to ascertain the intent of the framer.”
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Perez v. O’Neil, , (brackets in Bergeron): In determining the meaning of a rule promulgated by the supreme court, “we apply principles of statutory construction.”
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Perez v. O’Neil, (brackets in Bergeron): In determining the meaning of a rule promulgated by the supreme court, “we apply principles of statutory construction.”
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶ 16 In determining the meaning of a rule promulgated by the supreme court, “we apply principles of statutory construction.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
-69, -87 (1991); 3 Our first point of reference, of course, is the statutory language, which we expect to be “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
“[I]n construing court rules, we apply principles of statutory construction.”
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Byers-Watts v. Parker 18 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Byers-Watts v. Parker 18 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
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
(we construe rules of court using the same methods as are employed in construing statutes).
Hill v. Hall Ex Rel. County of Yuma 980 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Frohlich v. City Court 995 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Frohlich v. City Court 995 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(statutes construed to avoid absurdity).
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(statutes that relate to the same subject matter are to be read together and harmonized so as to give effect to all provisions); , (in construing rules of court, we apply the same rules of construction as are used in interpreting statutes).
State v. Medrano-Barraza 949 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Medrano-Barraza 949 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“[I]n construing [statutes and] court rules, we apply principles of statutory construction.” , (citation omitted).