Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Alejandro v. Harrison, 219 P.3d 231.

28 citing documents.

KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 12 (App. 2009) (“Obitur dictum is a statement of general law made by a court which is unnecessary to its decision and thus not precedential .
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Olewin v. Nobel Mfg., LLC, ¶ 19 (App. 2023) (noting that a court’s statement of law “unnecessary to its decision” is obiter dictum and “thus not precedential”) ( ¶ 12 (App. 2009)).
Olewin v. Nobel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Olewin v. Nobel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 12 (App. 2009) (“Obitur dictum is a statement of general law made by a court which is unnecessary to its decision and thus not precedential, but merely persuasive.
Clayton v. Hon. Kenworthy 475 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Clayton v. Hon. Kenworthy 475 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Apodaca, Sr. v. Keeling 439 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Apodaca, Sr. v. Keeling 439 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
American Furniture v. Gilbert 425 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
American Furniture v. Gilbert 425 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 12 (App. 2009) (noting statements not essential to ultimate decision are “merely persuasive” but not precedential).
State v. Weaver 418 P.3d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Weaver 418 P.3d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See Alejandro v. Harrison , , ¶ 12, (dicta not binding, but has persuasive value).
In Re Anthony A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Anthony A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 8 (App. 2009) ([T]here is “no constitutional right mandating that a court accept an offer of guilt.”).
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Arizona HOA Acceptance LLC 369 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Arizona HOA Acceptance LLC 369 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
At oral argument in this court, the Bank, through counsel, suggested the supreme court's discussion of the attachment lien and the right of the second creditor to redeem the property based on that lien was "dicta.” ¶ 12 , ("Obitur dictum " is statement of general law made by a court that is not necessary to its decision, and thus, not precedential, but merely "persuasive”).
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Third, P.3d 231 (App. 2009), in which this court held that the superior court may not refuse to accept an otherwise adequate, unconditional guilty plea to less than all counts on the sole basis that the State objects.
State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Spirlong v. Browne 336 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Spirlong v. Browne 336 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 8, (when drafters of a statute include particular language in one part of a statute, but not in another part of the statute, courts should not read “that language into the portion of the statute or rule from which the particular language has been omitted.”).
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents 269 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents 269 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶¶ 10,18; , (dictum not precedential when general statement of law unnecessary to decision).
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
we consider it and any related rules as a whole, attempting to give meaning to every word, and not making any word superfluous.” (citations omitted).