Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Affordable Bail Bonds, 6 P.3d 339.

39 citing documents.

State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-38, ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2000).
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. , , 109, ¶ 13, , 995 (App. 2015) (citing State v. Affordable Bail Bonds , , 37, ¶ 13, , 342 (App. 2000) ).
State v. Bankers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bankers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9, 5 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming the judgment.
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Although “surrender” is not defined in the statute, we have determined that it means “the transfer of physical possession of a defendant into the custody of the State.” ¶ 21
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moreover, “‘[statutes must be given a sensible construction that accomplishes the legislative intent and which avoids absurd results.’” ¶ 13 , ( , ).
ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 12, (“[S]tatutes must be given a sensible construction that accomplishes the legislative intent and which avoids absurd results.”).
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 13 , (we will give statutes a "sensible construction that accomplishes the legislative intent and which avoids absurd results").
In Re BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 238 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 238 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“„The right of the surety to recapture his principal is not a matter of 10 criminal procedure .
State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds 213 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds 213 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
§ 13-3974, means the transfer of physical possession of a defendant into the custody of the State and does not occur if a bail bondsman merely notifies law enforcement of the location of a defendant within a residential structure.” ¶ 21
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 172 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 172 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“We will refrain from construing a statute to require something not within the plain intent of the legislature as expressed by the language of the statute.” ¶ 13
State v. Nelson 150 P.3d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Nelson 150 P.3d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“We will refrain from construing a statute to require something not within the plain intent of the legislature as expressed by the language of the statute.” ¶ 13
In Re Bond Forfeiture in Pima County Cause Cr-20031154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In Re Bond Forfeiture in Pima County Cause Cr-20031154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
344 (App. 2000); United Bonding Ins.
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 83 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 83 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
‘We will refrain from construing a statute to require something not within the plain intent of the legislature as expressed by the language of the statute.” ¶ 13 , (citation omitted); ¶ 6 , (stating that we avoid construing a statute so as to render its language superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant); In re Maricopa County Juv.
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
argues that § 13-1805 likewise “defines a single crime, shoplifting, and provides that the classification of the offense, for punishment purposes, is to be determined by value, prior convictions, and the methodology used to facilitate the offense.” ¶16 When interpreting a statute, we seek “to determine and give effect to the legislature’s intent.” (App. 7 2000); P.2d 681 (1992) (statutory interpretation requires court to discern legislative intent).
Knight Transportation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 55 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Knight Transportation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 55 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Bonds 33 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Bonds 33 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001