Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Goddard v. Superior Court, 956 P.2d 529.

42 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Ronald David Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Ronald David Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
See §§ 13-3407(A)(1), (2), (B)(1), (2), 13-3408(A)(1), (2), (B)(1), (2), 13-901.01(C); Foster, (differentiating “non-commercial” from “commercial or potentially commercial” possession); ¶¶ 9-10 (App. 1998) (noting legislative distinction between possession and possession for sale), disapproved on other grounds by Green
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Scalia & Garner, supra, at 69 (“Words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings.”); Goddard v. Superior Court (Romley), ¶ 8 (App. 1998).
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
-05 ¶¶ 7-8, 14 (App. 1998) (holding that convictions for possession of drugs for sale count as strikes under § 13-901.01 despite language explicitly excluding possession for sale in subsection (C)); ¶ 6 (App. 2000) (reasoning that it is illogical to apply § 13-9
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Thomas , , ¶ 1, ; Goddard v. Superior Court , , ¶ 9
Villasenor v. Evans 386 P.3d 1273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Villasenor v. Evans 386 P.3d 1273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
must be consistent with both the general intent of the claims statutes and the intent of the specific statute involved.”); Goddard v. Superior Court (Romley), ¶ 8 , (“Although the statutory language, read in isolation, is susceptible to that construction, we decline to interpret the statute in a manner so contrary to common sense.
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Citing Goddard v. Superior Court, 191 Ariz. 402, P.2d 327 (App. 1980), the state urges that we look beyond the language of the statute to avoid this outcome.
In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
the system of related statutes of which it forms a part.’” (alteration in Rodriguez); see also State ex rel.
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
County of Maricopa, ¶ 2 , ¶ 2 , , ¶ 1 , Baker, 190 Ariz. at 338 , 947 P.2d at 912 ; Bolton, 190 Ariz. at 202 , 945 P.2d at 1333 .
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
the system of related statutes of which it forms a part.”
State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
§ 13-901.01(B), (G); ¶ 14
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 8 , (declining to interpret statute in “a manner so contrary to common sense”).
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Foster, 196 Ariz. at 233, ¶7 , 995 P.2d at 275 ; Goddard v. Superior Court (Romley), ¶ 9
Keenen v. Biles 17 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Keenen v. Biles 17 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
We interpret the statute “by reference to its stated purpose and by reference to the system of related statutes of which it forms a part.” ¶ 8 , (citations omitted).
State v. Estrada 4 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Estrada 4 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
The trial court, however, believed itself bound to impose a
Park Central Mall, LLC v. Maricopa County 4 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Park Central Mall, LLC v. Maricopa County 4 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 8 , ¶ 8 (1998) (“Statutes relating to the same subject ...
Foster v. Irwin 995 P.2d 272 Ariz. 2000
Foster v. Irwin 995 P.2d 272 Ariz. 2000
-05 , -32 (App.1998) (noting distinction made by drafters and voters between possession for use and possession for other purposes).
Stubblefield v. Trombino 4 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Stubblefield v. Trombino 4 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See, -05 , -32 (App.1998), review denied (May 19, 1998), (holding that convictions for possession of drugs for sale may be considered when sentencing pursuant to A.R.S.
Mejia v. Irwin 987 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Mejia v. Irwin 987 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-05 , -32 (App.1998) (holding that a person twice convicted of possession of drugs for sale did not fall within the scope of A.R.S.