Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Purcell v. Superior Court, 485 P.2d 549.

48 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(implicit repeal is not favored unless clear that two statutes are inherently inconsistent).
In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins 544 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2024
In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins 544 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2024
see also, ¶ 16 (Ariz. 2024) (stating that “this Court has repeatedly made clear that ‘repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be indulged, if there is any other reasonable construction’” (quoting S. Pac.
State of Arizona v. Daniel Louis Santillanes Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Daniel Louis Santillanes Ariz. 2024
)); State Land Dep’t v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co., (“It is the rule, one so solidly embedded in American jurisprudence to be without exception, that a court will not construe a statute as repealed by implication by another if it can avoid doing so on any reasonable hypothesis.”).
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
-18 , -86 (1969); see also Encinas, 189 Ariz. at 159 , 939 P.2d at 437 (adopting the “reasonable and workable” standard).
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Blazak, 105 Ariz. at 218 , 462 P.2d at 86 .
State v. Valenzuela 898 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Valenzuela 898 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-70107-2 716 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1986
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-70107-2 716 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1986
where statutes are inherently irreconcilable it is our duty to determine which is the governing law.
Smith v. MacDougall 676 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Smith v. MacDougall 676 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 673 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 673 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Arizona Tax Commission v. Dairy Consumers Cooperative Association, *133 , State v. Morris, 7 Ariz.App.
State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court 646 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1982
State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court 646 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1982
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
Mead, Samuel & Co., Inc. v. Dyar 622 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Mead, Samuel & Co., Inc. v. Dyar 622 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1 Cranch), 2 L.Ed.
Suppeland v. Nilz 623 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System Commission 619 P.2d 1036 Ariz. 1980
Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System Commission 619 P.2d 1036 Ariz. 1980
Matter of Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-834, 26 Ariz.App.
Jones v. Manhart 585 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Jones v. Manhart 585 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Lynch 587 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Lynch 587 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Mitchell 554 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Mitchell 554 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Rehurek v. Welcome 549 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Rehurek v. Welcome 549 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Matter of App. in Maricopa Cty., Juv. Act. 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Matter of App. in Maricopa Cty., Juv. Act. 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arizona Podiatry Assn., supra
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arizona Podiatry Assn., supra
State v. Brennan 528 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Brennan 528 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
the Supreme Court has ruled that § 13-1422 repealed the previous motor vehicle code statutes §§ 28-1053 and 28-1054 which dealt with the same subject matter of failure to appear after promise.
State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973