Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Alawy, 9 P.3d 1102.

28 citing documents.

State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Additionally, “[i]n construing a legislative enactment, we apply a practical and commonsensical construction.” ¶ 8
State v. Wasbotten 372 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wasbotten 372 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“In construing a legislative enactment, we apply a practical and commonsensical construction,” ¶ 8 , and look first to the plain meaning of the words as the best indicator of the statute’s meaning, Givens, 206 Ariz. at 188, ¶ 5 , .
State v. Derienzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Derienzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[W]e apply a practical and commonsensical construction.” ¶ 8 (App. 2000).
State v. Pledger 341 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pledger 341 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Additionally, “[i]n construing a legislative enactment, we apply a practical and commonsensical construction.” ¶ 8
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n.2, ¶ 7, (noting “it is not for [the appellate] court but for the trier of fact to determine the credibility of the witnesses”); see Ritland v. Ariz. State Bd.
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
As part of the agreement, Ponsart waived “his right to appeal the judgment and sentence to a higher court.” 3 Alawy
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In doing so, we give words them “plain and ordinary meaning” [and] “apply a practical and commonsensical construction.” ¶ 8
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
When interpreting a term, “ ‘we apply a practical and commonsensical construction.’ ” Douglass, , 20 P.3d at 1177 , , see also Abbott, 129 Ariz. at 275 , 630 P.2d at 571 (“[T]he court will adopt the interpretation that is reasonable.”).
State v. Jensen 173 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Jensen 173 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
365 n. 2, ¶ 7, , 1104 n. 2 (App.2000).
State of Arizona v. Michael Manuel Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Michael Manuel Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Mutschler 65 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Mutschler 65 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“In construing a legislative enactment, we apply a practical and commonsensical construction.” , *523 365, ¶ 8
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Douglass v. Gendron 20 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Douglass v. Gendron 20 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 10 Municipal ordinances are construed in the same manner as state statutes, , and “we apply a practical and commonsensical construction.” , 365 ¶ 8