Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Medrano-Barraza, 949 P.2d 561.

47 citing documents.

Nayeri v. Mohave County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Nayeri v. Mohave County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. 349 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. 349 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
See State v. Medrano–Barraza, (“We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a 14 CEMEX v. FALCONE BROS. & ASSOCS., INC. Opinion of the Court consequence.”); Ariz. Health Care Cost
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(“When interpreting a court rule or statute, we seek to ascertain the framers’ intent.”).
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
(determining non-pleading defendant who admitted prior convictions entitled to appeal sentence, in part because, under contrary interpretation of § 13-4033(B), “a defendant convicted by trial but sentenced after an admission of prior convictions would generate two .
State v. Barr 175 P.3d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barr 175 P.3d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re P.D. 166 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re PD 166 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re PD 166 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
("We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence."); A.R.S.
In re P.D. 166 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(‘We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence.”); A.R.S.
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
P. 17.2; State v. Medrano-Barraza, *290
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. 142 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. 142 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(‘We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence.”).
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization 104 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization 104 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence.”).
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(“We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence.”); see also A.R.S.
JOHN C. v. Sargeant 90 P.3d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
JOHN C. v. Sargeant 90 P.3d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
‘avoid construction of statutes which would render them meaningless or of no effect.’ ” (citation omitted)); , (presuming that legislature “did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence”).
Thomas v. Thomas 49 P.3d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Thomas v. Thomas 49 P.3d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(stating that the court interprets statutes so as to avoid an absurd result).
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(“We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence.”).
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(declining to adopt the government’s construction of a statute to avoid an absurd result).
Citadel Care Center v. Arizona Department of Revenue 25 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Citadel Care Center v. Arizona Department of Revenue 25 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(“We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence.”).
True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Davis 12 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Davis 12 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(court interprets statutes so as to avoid absurd results).
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(“We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence.”); see also A.R.S.
Inzunza-Ortega v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Inzunza-Ortega v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998