Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein, 150 P.3d 778.

36 citing documents.

State v. Mata 550 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Distinguished State v. Mata 550 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
the State argues that § 28-672(F) impermissibly limits the class of victims entitled to restitution.
E.L. v. Hon Carman 500 P.3d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
E.L. v. Hon Carman 500 P.3d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶15 “When interpreting the scope of the Victims’ Bill of Rights, we are required to follow and apply its plain language.” ¶ 5 (App. 2007).
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
¶ 10 (App. 2007) (noting statutory definitions of criminal offenses at time VBR enacted to determine scope of right in question and assess validity of legislative enactment).
State v. Patel 452 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Patel 452 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 7 (App. 2007) (stating that one purpose of the VBR was to provide rights to all victims).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thomas v. Klein , , 207, ¶ 7, , 780 (App. 2007).
State v. Wein 396 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wein 396 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Niehaus v. Huppenthal 310 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Niehaus v. Huppenthal 310 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
¶ 14, (recognizing that the Legislature may “effectively limit the scope of the Victims’ Bill of Rights” by “decriminaliz[ing] certain conduct or redefin[ing] the type of conduct that qualifies as a criminal offense”).
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Douglass v. State 195 P.3d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Douglass v. State 195 P.3d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-09, ¶¶ 10-15 , -82 (App.2007) (holding that the phrase “criminal offense” in Article 2, Section 2.1(C) includes all violations of state criminal statutes).
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(holding unconstitutional definition of criminal offense in § 13-4401(6) insofar as it narrowed definition of victim in effect when Victims’ Bill of Rights adopted).
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 5 , (when constitutionality of provision is challenged, “we presume that [it] is constitutional, and the party challenging its validity bears the burden of establishing that the legislation is unconstitutional; any doubts are resolved to the contrary”); Bussanich v. Douglas, 152 Ar
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-09, ¶¶ 10, 15 , -82 (App.2007) (holding that the legislature does not have the “authority to enact a statutory definition that narrow[s] the class of persons otherwise protected by the Victims’ Bill of Rights”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by