Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, 887 P.2d 599.

48 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to K.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to K.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Action No. JT9065297, (“Arizona courts indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.”).
Mahmoodi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mahmoodi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Action No. JT9065297, ).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Action No. JT9065297, (“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.”) (citing United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223, 1235 (9th Cir. 1980)); ¶ 11
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Action No. IT9065297, , , see also Jung, 19 Ariz.App.
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
A defendant “who relies upon *201 an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, , (citing cases); see also State v. Jung, 19 Ariz.App.
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Action No. JT9065297, , (curfew ordinance); , (signature gathering on private property).
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, see also United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1980) (same); P.2d 625 (App. 1985) (statutory exception for inoperable firearms not an element of crime involving deadly weapon; burden to show inoperability on defendant); State
State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, , Hagen, 27 Ariz.App.
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, Hagen, 27 Ariz. App. at 724, 558 P.2d at 752 (“One whose conduct is clearly proscribed by the terms of a statute may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”); see also Kaiser, (App. 19
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, , (recognizing freedom to move as fundamental right “rooted in our ...
Raye v. Jones 76 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Raye v. Jones 76 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
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
In support, , Reinstein; , In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297
Mara M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 38 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Mara M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 38 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Dayvid S. 15 P.3d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Dayvid S. 15 P.3d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Matter of Appeal In Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, , ( , ).
In Re William G. 963 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re William G. 963 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review Our review in this matter is focused on determining “whether, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297
State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“When an ordinance’s language is unclear, we strive to give it a sensible construction and, if possible, uphold the ordinance.” In re Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, , ( , ).
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Parole 885 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Parole 885 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297