Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hammonds, 968 P.2d 601.

34 citing documents.

State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
And given the understanding of the law at the time of trial in 1999, ¶¶ 8–11 (App. 1998) (denying an equal protection challenge to a conviction based on a non-impairing metabolite), the parties reasonably may not have understood reliance on Carboxy-THC to be improper.
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 15 (App. 1998) (citing Ohio Bureau of Emp’t Servs.
State v. Burgess 428 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Burgess 428 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
5 STATE v. BURGESS Opinion of the Court arbitrariness or irrationality.” ¶ 9 (App. 1998).
Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 426 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 426 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
532 ¶ 15, , 605 (App. 1998) (noting rational basis does not require the State to select "the least intrusive, nor most effective, means of achieving its goals").
Loncar v. Ducey 422 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Loncar v. Ducey 422 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hammonds , , 532, ¶ 15, , 605 (App. 1998).
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The rational basis test does not require the legislature to choose “the least intrusive, nor most effective, means of achieving its goals.” ¶ 15 (App. 1998) (citing Ohio Bureau of Emp’t Servs.
State of Arizona v. Angelica Marlene Werderman 350 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Angelica Marlene Werderman 350 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
The only other case we have found addressing the constitutionality or meaning of 4 STATE v. WERDERMAN Opinion of the Court §§ 28-1381(A)(3) or 28-692(A)(3), P.2d 601 (App. 1998), also does not determine the meaning of the phrase “its metabolite.” As it did in regards to Phillips, the supreme court noted Hammonds did not address the issue presented in Harris.
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris 301 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris 301 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Prior to appealing to the superior court, the State moved for reconsideration, citing, for the first time
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Id,.; -32 , -05 (App.1998) (describing scope and purpose of statutory predecessor); -72 , -10 (App.1994) (same).
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co., -97 , -13 (1988)); , 531 ¶ 8, (“[A] statute must be rationally related to furthering a legitimate governmental interest.”); , (If the legislative reasoning is related to public health, safety or welfare, we will not question the legislature i
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Co. , , , (legislature not required to forego measure “simply because it may be somewhat imprecise”).
Parker v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass'n 59 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Parker v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass'n 59 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(“[A] statute offends equal protection only if it is ‘wholly irrelevant’ to the achievement of a legitimate governmental objective.”).
State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(noting that “there is a rational basis for believing that the presence of an illicit drug’s metabolite establishes the possibility of the presence of the active, impairing component of the drug.
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
See also Big D Constr., 163 Ariz. at 566 , 789 P.2d at 1067 (rational basis test requires neither “perfect fit” nor total equality in practice); , (“In seeking to protect the life and health of its citizenry, the legislature cannot be required to forego an effective prophylactic measure simply because it may be somewhat imprecise.”).